UK whistleblowing reform: the key changes under consultation

The government is consulting on the most comprehensive assessment of the whistleblowing framework applicable to England, Wales and Scotland since the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The proposals could affect who is protected, how concerns are reported and what employers must do in response. The government is also consulting on the introduction of a financial reward scheme for whistleblowers reporting economic crime.

Why should I read this?

Whistleblowing is already a high-risk area for employers. Claims can be brought from day one of employment, compensation for whistleblowing dismissal and detriment is uncapped, and an interim relief application can place immediate pressure on an employer to continue paying a dismissed employee while the claim proceeds.

The consultation asks whether employers should be legally required to operate effective whistleblowing procedures, follow up concerns and communicate with whistleblowers. It also considers easier routes to make protected disclosures to prescribed persons (such as regulators), a new reporting route to trade unions, wider protection for people who are not employees, and a financial reward scheme for individuals who provide the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) with significant information about economic crime.

The consultation closes at 11.59pm on 8 January 2027. In the meantime, employers should ensure their whistleblowing procedures work effectively in practice and prepare for the possibility of more formal legal requirements.

The current law

The main whistleblowing framework is contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. A disclosure is protected where a worker:

• reasonably believes that their disclosure is in the “public interest”
• reasonably believes their disclosure shows specified wrongdoing has taken place, is taking place, or is likely to take place; and
• makes the disclosure through the appropriate channels

To be protected, the wrongdoing may involve a criminal offence, breach of a legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, danger to health and safety, environmental damage, sexual harassment or deliberate concealment of information about any of those matters.

Protection is wider than employees and includes workers and certain other groups. A worker does not have to report internally first, although the statutory conditions generally become more demanding as the disclosure moves further away from the employer. Disclosures to prescribed persons, such as relevant regulators, currently require the worker reasonably to believe that the information is substantially true and within the recipient’s remit.

Workers are protected against detriment because they made a protected disclosure. Employees dismissed principally for making a protected disclosure may claim automatic unfair dismissal without a qualifying period. Claims may also be brought against individual colleagues or agents alleged to have caused detriment. Compensation is uncapped and may include financial loss and injury to feelings (in detriment claims). An employee alleging whistleblowing dismissal may apply for interim relief within seven days of termination. The consultation notes a significant increase in interim relief applications, with regional Employment Tribunals now receiving around 20 a month, compared with a historic average of around 20 a year. Extending the deadline may increase applications further, resulting in additional legal and administrative costs for employers and adding to tribunal caseloads.

There is no general statutory duty on most employers to maintain a whistleblowing policy or investigate every disclosure, although government guidance encourages good practice and some regulated sectors already face specific requirements.

What could change?

The consultation is broad. It asks whether protection should extend further, including to some self-employed people, non-executive directors, charity trustees, volunteers and job applicants outside the NHS. It also asks whether the existing public interest test works effectively and whether the statutory categories of wrongdoing adequately address corruption, misuse of public funds, abuse of authority and risks arising from AI.

The government is considering removing the “substantially true” requirement for disclosures to prescribed persons, potentially making it easier for workers to approach regulators directly. However, the consultation recognises potential drawbacks, including that weaker allegations could attract protection, employers could find it harder to manage workplace disputes and disciplinary issues, and regulators could face an increased burden. The consultation also asks whether disclosures to trade union officials should have a distinct protected route subject to the lowest statutory threshold. Both proposals could make external reporting more attractive, increasing the importance of credible internal channels.

The deadline for applying for interim relief could be extended from seven to 14 days. Although interim relief remains an exceptional remedy, the longer deadline could result in more applications. Employers will need to act quickly where a dismissal follows earlier concerns, including identifying relevant decision-makers, preserving evidence and taking legal advice.

The consultation also considers whether workers need more help navigating the system of prescribed persons, including through an AI-assisted tool or a central whistleblowing body. The government’s initial view is that a new central body is not necessary, but it is seeking views before reaching a final position.

A new duty for employers?

A significant proposal is a possible statutory duty to maintain appropriate and effective procedures, explain them in a written policy and follow up disclosures. Follow-up would not necessarily require a formal investigation in every case, but employers would be expected to assess concerns and take reasonable and proportionate action.

One model identified in the consultation is Ireland’s Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which implements the EU Whistleblowing Directive. Its requirements include secure reporting channels, written acknowledgement within seven days, an impartial designated person, diligent follow-up and feedback within three months. The consultation also refers to the less prescriptive FCA model, under which relevant firms must ensure that disclosures are properly assessed and provide feedback where appropriate.

The government is considering applying a statutory duty to all public sector employers regardless of size and for private sector employers with 50 or more employees, including charities and not-for-profit organisations. Civil penalties and oversight by a designated public body are under consideration. The government is also considering an alternative approach of revised non-statutory guidance, rather than imposing a new legal duty on employers. What does this mean for financial services?

Certain banks, building societies, insurers and other firms already operate under detailed FCA and PRA whistleblowing rules. SYSC 18 requires firms within scope to establish and maintain an independent whistleblowing channel through which reportable concerns (which are widely defined) can be disclosed. Relevant firms must also, amongst other requirements, appoint or allocate responsibility to a whistleblowers’ champion, train staff, escalate disclosures to regulators where appropriate, and ensure settlement agreements do not prevent protected disclosures.

The proposed general duty may therefore have less operational impact on firms whose arrangements already meet equivalent requirements. The consultation includes consideration of excluding organisations from any statutory duty that are already subject to equivalent whistleblowing requirements in certain sectors – for example, certain firms in the financial services sector that are regulated by the FCA.

However, financial services groups should not assume they will be exempt. A group may contain regulated entities, service companies, overseas businesses, appointed representatives and other organisations subject to different rules. The consultation asks whether existing sectoral regimes should be treated as equivalent, but the answer may differ across entities.

Rewards for reporting economic crime

The government supports an SFO financial incentive scheme for individuals who provide significant and original information about economic crime to the SFO, where that information leads to a corporate conviction or alternative enforcement action. The reward would be funded from part of the company’s financial penalty or fine and paid only after the case and any appeal were concluded. Eligibility could be affected by complicity, a legal duty to report, dishonest acquisition of information or other specified factors.

The scheme would be separate from the employment-law framework and could apply regardless of where the individual is located. A meaningful reward may encourage employees, former employees, contractors and agents to report externally.

Key actions for organisations

• Decide whether to respond to the consultation by 8 January 2027, focusing on the statutory duty, the 50-employee threshold, enforcement and any exemption for equivalent regulatory regimes. Consider sharing your views at our roundtable event detailed below
• Review whistleblowing policies and reporting channels to ensure current best practice is being followed
• Map how disclosures move between HR, legal, compliance, audit, safeguarding and financial crime teams. Define responsibility where a report engages more than one regime
• Train managers to recognise potential protected disclosures and avoid retaliation. Informal exclusion, loss of opportunities, threats or hostile communications may all create risk
• Review investigation protocols, privilege, evidence preservation, data protection and board reporting
• For financial services groups, map requirements entity by entity and ensure current sector requirements are being followed
• Review fraud, bribery and corporate crime controls in light of the proposed SFO rewards, including escalation and self-reporting decisions

Virtual roundtable

We are holding a virtual roundtable on 24 November 2026 to discuss the proposals and their practical implications. If you would like to join, please contact use here.

How we can help

Our employment team helps organisations design and review whistleblowing arrangements, train managers and case handlers, conduct investigations and defend tribunal claims, including urgent interim relief applications. We work with our financial services, corporate crime, investigations and regulatory teams where concerns engage FCA or PRA requirements, fraud, bribery or SFO issues.