Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)

My Lords, this has been an important and somewhat constrained debate—I thought we would be discussing it for a little longer—as well as being a very informative debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with whom I have worked on these issues very constructively in previous pieces of legislation. She knows of my personal commitment; she also gave me homework on previous pieces of legislation, which I duly did, with an appropriate level of engagement. That is why I am so pleased to be able to have volunteered—or to have been voluntold by my noble friend the Minister—for this grouping. Before I move on to the substance, I want to touch on one of the most important issues raised: the death of Simon Andriesz, which was raised by the noble Baroness. I cannot comment on the details, nor would she expect me to do so, but I share the whole House’s deep concerns about what happened and the issues that his case raises, and I am sure that the FCA will be undertaking the appropriate investigations. Whistleblowers play an important role in exposing wrongdoing, protecting public funds and, most importantly, protecting the general public. It is essential that public officials can raise concerns without fear of adverse treatment. I have listened carefully to the debate, especially the contributions of my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The noble Baroness talks about these issues with a level of personal experience. Some Members of your Lordships’ House may not be aware that her sister raised significant issues, which, had they been listened to, would have saved huge pain and distress for many others. That is indicative of the reason why we now need this duty of candour and why the processes need to be in place. Turning to the substance of this group of amendments, although the Government’s view is that existing legal protections already provide safeguards for officials who speak up about alleged wrongdoing under the duty of candour, I genuinely want to engage further with noble Lords on these issues as the Bill progresses to see what, where and how we can do, given the consultation. I want to be clear that, under the Bill, the public authorities are required to make and publish a code of ethical conduct that must contain information about the organisation’s whistleblowing policies. Even where a disclosure does not meet the statutory test for whistleblowing protection, employees may still be able to challenge a dismissal where the disclosure was made in accordance with a legal duty, such as the duty of candour and assistance. Employers, and in turn the employment tribunal—the noble Baroness was absolutely right to raise the cost, but I urge that every employee should be a member of a trade union should they find themselves in such a position—are able to take these factors into account when assessing the fairness of any dismissal. Public authorities will ensure that employees, via any code of ethical conduct, are able to find out about their rights. However, I understand the concerns that have been raised, which is why I am pleased that the Government have today launched an open consultation on the operation of the whistleblowing framework. I encourage all Members of your Lordships’ House to make their own submissions. I want to reassure your Lordships that there is no predetermined decision. Although I appreciate the concerns raised about the last consultation by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, it was not done by this Government, and she is more than aware that we might have slightly different views about what we will be seeking to explore. As part of the consultation, we are seeking views on options to encourage or require employers to have appropriate arrangements for handling whistleblowing disclosures. One option under consideration is a legal requirement for larger private sector and all public sector employers to have effective whistleblowing procedures in place. This could include a requirement to carry out appropriate follow-up on disclosures, such as making an initial assessment of the disclosure, seeking further information where necessary and considering whether there is evidence that wrongdoing may have occurred. However, to be clear, we are not proposing to require employers to formally investigate every disclosure. Instead, employers would be expected to take reasonable and proportionate steps to assess whether a disclosure has merit and decide what action, if any, is appropriate. The Government are also seeking views on whether an independent whistleblowing body should be established. I appreciate concerns about the time required to move from consultation to reform. However, whistleblowing is an issue that affects all sectors of the economy and concerns relating to protected disclosures are not unique to the public sector. It is therefore important that we take account of the views of a wide range of stakeholders before deciding whether legislative change is needed and what it would look like. My personal engagement on this issue has made it clear that there is not currently one agreed way forward. In fact, every stakeholder that I met had a different, considered opinion on what an office, compensation and protections could and should look like. So, in my opinion, a consultation is required to make sure we can get to a point where it is workable for the majority. It would therefore be premature to legislate on these matters before the evidence has been gathered and considered and the Government have reached conclusions on the future of the whistleblowing framework. I move on to Amendment 108, which would require a review to report to Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent on whether the Act’s disclosure provisions are protecting those who rely on them, including whether an independent body should be established. We agree that it is right to review whether the Bill’s measures are working as intended. We are exploring the best way to achieve that and what should be covered as part of it. I look forward to those ongoing discussions with the noble Baroness. I also remind Peers of the Bill’s scope. Any changes in the Bill would apply only to the public sector, creating discrepancies in the whistleblowing framework with other sectors, which is far from ideal in this area. Any change should be a change for all.