Select committee inquiry
Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“There continue to be issues with how whistleblowers can raise concerns in Government, as highlighted by both the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2023 and the Boardman Review into the development and use of supply chain finance in Government in 2021 . The Committee’s 2014 and 2016 whistleblowing reports found that a lack of leadership across Government has led to inconsistency in whistleblowing arrangements, and that the Cabinet Office did not have the data required to identify where improvements are needed in Departments’ whistleblowing performance. In 2023, the National Audit Office (NAO) conducted an investigation providing an overview of the whistleblowing landscape in the civil service. Based on the NAO investigation, the Committee will take evidence from senior Cabinet Office officials on subjects including: The current picture of whistleblowing in the civil service; Roles and responsibilities for whistleblowing arrangements; Central Government support and oversight of whistleblowing; Consistency of data collection. If you have evidence on these issues, please submit it here by 23:59 on Tuesday 2 April 2024. Please look at the requirements for written evidence submissions and note that the Committee cannot accept material as evidence that is published elsewhere. Please note that the Committee is unable to investigate individual cases. Parliamentary select committees are not prescribed bodies under the statutory framework for whistleblowing. You can find more information on how to whistleblow to an appropriate body on the Gov.uk website, here: https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing . This inquiry was closed due to the 2024 General Election.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Thirty-Sixth Report - Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service ↗
Whistleblowing is a valuable part of good government and it requires consistent policies across the civil service and a culture that supports it. A 2022 survey found that only around half (52%) of civil servants think that it is safe to challenge the way things are done, so it is clear that the civil service has more to do to promote a culture supportive to whistleblowing. A cultural change is needed to raise awareness and provide assurance on whistleblowing processes and create a ‘speak up’ environment. This could be encouraged through line management training, seeking feedback from whistleblowers directly and praising their efforts to highlight how valuable their insights are to the civil service. Whistleblowers are the primary users of the process, yet feedback on their experience is not currently being sought, so departments are missing out on vital source of intelligence which should be utilised to improve the current whistleblowing arrangements.
This Committee reported on whistleblowing in 2016 and was disappointed by the slow progress Cabinet Office and departments had made to improve whistleblowing arrangements. Despite some subsequent improvements in its data collection on whistleblowing concerns across the civil service, the Cabinet Office is still missing key metrics and lacks assurance over the completeness and consistency of data being reported by departments. There continues to be a lack of cross-government leadership on whistleblowing which has resulted in varying approaches across departments. The Cabinet Office currently provides support in the form of guidance, policies and training, but it could do more to lead on identifying improvements. This could be achieved by performing analysis on central data to deepen its understanding of the concerns raised and share these insights across the civil service.
There is also a lack of joined up thinking across the civil service when it comes to sharing good practice on whistleblowing. The Cabinet Office guidance encourages departments to work with their arm’s-length bodies, but this isn’t always applied in practice. There are lots of examples of good practice across the civil service which should be shared with all government bodies. This could enhance their understanding of whistleblowing cases and encourage learning from others when it comes to whistleblowing policies and procedures in the civil service.
What the government said
The government responded on 11 July 2025. The deadline was 25 July 2024.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government states that it "agrees with the Committee's recommendation" on each of the five areas, describing two as implemented and setting target dates for others.
- On data collection, the Cabinet Office will work with departmental leads to review the annual data collection for 2024-25 and widen the data set, with a target implementation date of Spring 2025. It "will explore" the "feasibility" of tracking cases where whistleblowers later make victimisation or harassment claims.
- On spot checks, the government agrees and states the recommendation is "implemented", saying it held departmental assurance meetings (spot checks) with practitioners throughout Summer 2024.
- On the speak-up culture, the Cabinet Office "is considering" a civil service-wide whistleblowing champion at SCS level, and "will work with departmental leads to commission a survey of whistleblowers".
- On whistleblower feedback, with a target of end 2024, the Cabinet Office "will develop an anonymised feedback survey". Providing feedback will be "a voluntary measure", so whistleblowers are not deterred from raising a concern.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 10 January 2024 to 11 July 2025. The dashed mark is the deadline Parliament records for the government's response.
- Oral evidence 17 Apr 2024
- Report 25 May 2024
- Government response 11 Jul 2025
- Correspondence 29 Apr 2024
What it recommended 6 recommendations · 18 conclusions
2Set out specific actions to analyse civil service whistleblowing data for improved knowledge.
Concluded (the committee's words)
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.
3Ensure departments build a positive environment encouraging civil service whistleblowing concerns to be raised.
Recommended (the committee's words)
A ‘speak up’ environment is not yet embedded throughout departments to encourage people to comfortably raise concerns. There are still negative perceptions 6 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 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.
4Require all departments to collate feedback from whistleblowers at the end of the process.
Concluded (the committee's words)
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.
5Develop a system to disseminate whistleblowing good practice across civil service and smaller bodies.
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 7 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: 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. b) It should do this work within 6 months and implement new practices shortly thereafter. 8 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 1 Whistleblowing arrangements in the civil service
1Committee received evidence on civil service whistleblowing from Cabinet Office and other departments.
Concluded (the committee's words)
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Cabinet Office, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) on whistleblowing in the civil service.1
6Cabinet Office introduced whistleblowing data collection and health check tools in 2017
Recommended (the committee's words)
In 2017, the Cabinet Office introduced data collection from departments following this Committee’s recommendations in 2016.7 The data collection process is known as the annual Raising a Concern (RAC) collection exercise, which includes a qualitative survey and a quantitative return. The information collected includes the number of whistleblowing cases and nature of those cases. There is also a centrally issued health check tool that departments can use to self-assess themselves against Cabinet Office model policies and practices.8 These health checks are designed to provide assurance to permanent secretaries that there are effective whistleblowing arrangements in place in their departments and agencies.9
7Cabinet Office whistleblowing data has improved but lacks outcome and whistleblower perspective
Concluded (the committee's words)
Cabinet Office’s information on concerns and arrangements across the civil service has improved but it still has several quality limitations. For example, there is no method for capturing outcomes for concerns that are ‘ongoing’ at the point of an annual data collection and no structured data on what the process is like from the whistleblowers’ perspective.10 The Cabinet Office told us that the next time it collects data, it will pick up cases that were outstanding at the previous data collection so that it can track them end to end.11 It also accepted that it should ask departments if there are any cases of victimisation or harassment to understand the whistleblowing experience more going forward.12
8Cabinet Office does not centrally track whistleblowing investigation lengths from departments
Concluded (the committee's words)
HMRC told us it understands that it is important to whistleblowers that it investigates as quickly as possible, and both HMRC and DWP monitor the length of time cases take.13 But the Cabinet Office is not collating this metric from departments.14 HMRC told us that more complex cases can cause delays to investigations, either due to being particularly technical or other factors such as sickness absence or people being out of the office.15
9Central data collection fails to capture local actions from whistleblowing concerns
Concluded (the committee's words)
There are actions taken on a local level that are also not currently captured in the central data collection. The National Audit Office found that under 5% of completed cases in the period 2019–20 to 2021–22 are recorded as having led to changes in policies and procedures.16 The Cabinet Office told us that most whistleblowing cases are about people not following processes, rather than there being an issue with the policy and procedure itself. Both HMRC and DWP confirmed that they often respond to whistleblowing concerns by taking local action such as training staff to address the lack of adherence to a policy.17 Lack of data analysis
10Cabinet Office lacks systematic assessment of departmental whistleblowing data quality and completeness
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government People Group (within the Cabinet Office) does not systematically assess the departments’ returns for completeness or quality or to assure the adequacy of 7 HC Committee of Public Accounts, Making a whistleblowing policy work: progress update, Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 602, March 2016 8 Q 1 ; C&AG’s Report, para 1.6, Figure 2 9 C&AG’s Report, para 3.2 10 C&AG’s Report, para 15 11 Q 58 12 Qq 2, 71 13 Q 60 14 C&AG’s Report, recommandation a 15 Qq 61, 62 16 Q 83, C&AG’s Report, para 20 17 Qq 83, 92, 93 10 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service whistleblowing arrangements across government.18 So we were interested to hear how the Cabinet Office uses its central role to gain assurance and identify cross government insights on whistleblowing.19 The Cabinet Office told us it produces summary reports of the RAC departmental data and shares this with HR directors, nominated officers and policy leads.20 However, it could not tell us which departments are complying with best practice and it accepted that it can strengthen its data to get a better picture in this area.21
11Central data on fraud-related whistleblowing cases lacks seriousness and nature details
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office reported that fraud accounts for around 40% of concerns raised but the central data does not indicate the seriousness of any of the types of concerns raised.22 HMRC and DWP told us that they both have a very small portion of fraud-related whistleblowing cases in proportion to the size and nature of their departments.23 This would indicate these cases relate to concerns raised in other departments. The Cabinet Office could not confirm if these fraud-related cases are truly whistleblowing, as it does not have an understanding of the nature of these cases beyond the ‘fraud’ categorisation in its data collection. The Cabinet Office acknowledged this to be an area that it could follow up on by talking to departments about what information they track, and it could also talk to the Public Sector Fraud Authority about the data that it already collects in this area so that it does not duplicate that.24
12Inconsistent departmental health check data hinders evaluation of whistleblowing arrangements effectiveness
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office informed us that the health check data, as opposed to its annual RAC data collection, is where there is inconsistency in the data collected from departments.25 The variable data on departments whistleblowing arrangements makes it hard to compare and evaluate if they are currently effective or not. The Cabinet Office acknowledged that there is more it can do with departments to understand why there is such variation in the data and whether there is a way that it can improve consistency.26 The Cabinet Office told us it will provide more guidance and training for departments that are completing those health checks.27 It also agreed with the NAO that more consistent data in the health check returns would give it more assurance and confidence.28 Encouraging a ‘speak up’ environment
13Only half of civil servants feel safe to challenge current practices
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office found that just 52% of people ‘think it is safe to challenge the way things are done’, from their review of responses to the 2022 Civil Service People Survey. The equivalent figure for the NHS was 61.5%.29 The Cabinet Office told us it has improved over the recent People Surveys, but it needs to work on increasing this percentage as its not where it wants it to be. The Cabinet Office highlighted that it can support departments with the right tools to improve their ‘speak up’ environment, but said it is the responsibility of individual Accounting Officers to make sure they set the right 18 C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 19 Q 27 20 Q 37; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 21 Q 27 22 C&AG’s Report, para 14 23 Q 48–50 24 Qq 63–65 25 Qq 38; C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 26 Qq 38–40, 72 27 Q 2 28 Q 28 29 C&AG’s Report, para 3.7 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 11 environment in their own departments and agencies. The Cabinet Office also noted that audit and risk committees need to ensure the right processes are in place for Accounting Officers to be able to discharge that accountability.30
14High anonymity rates among whistleblowers reflect ongoing trust issues in civil service
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office told us that just under half of whistleblowers come forward anonymously, acknowledging that this fact shows it has more work to do to convince people it is safe to speak up.31 We asked HMRC and DWP how they embed a culture that encourages people to raise concerns.32 HMRC told us it sets standards it expects in its organisation and helps people understand them through different training methods they will receive when they join and then annually. There are also clear standards through professional bodies that people are part of and through the department’s customer charter.33 HMRC recently completed a review on culture and behaviours in the department producing a report “Respect at Work”.34 It also has regular dialogue with trade unions, with particular focus on the treatment of people who raise concerns.35 The Cabinet office told us that departments also try raise awareness of the whistleblowing process by sharing information on their intranet sites, blogs, town halls and at the ‘Speak Up’ campaign.36
15Mixed leadership role-modelling hinders supportive culture for raising concerns across civil service
Concluded (the committee's words)
The National Audit Office found a mixed picture when it reviewed the health check material against the ‘leaders role-model behaviour’ indicator which suggests senior leaders should role-model a supportive culture that gives people confidence to raise concerns.37 DWP noted that in large organisations such as itself and HMRC, the culture they set locally stems from line manager capability. DWP works with the Cabinet Office on the line manager standards across the civil service to instil the right behaviours in their senior staff. The Cabinet Office told us it is focusing on induction training and line manager training to improve line manager capability. DWP told us it believes this will help create the right environment for speaking up, where people can comfortably find the right route to raise concerns and have trust in the process.38 30 Qq 29–31 31 Q 29 32 Q 5 33 Q 94 34 Q 24 35 Q 36 36 Qq 5, 33 37 C&AG’s Report, para 3.9, 3.18 38 Q 94 12 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 2 Learning and sharing insights Seeking feedback from whistleblowers
16Whistleblower experience feedback not systematically collected across government departments.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The annual RAC data collection does not cover the treatment of whistleblowers; for example whether a whistleblower in a specific case has experienced any mistreatment, such as victimisation or bullying.39 The ‘whistleblowing heath check’ guidance issued by the Cabinet Office suggests departments should gather feedback from individuals on whether their concerns have been handled responsibly, professionally and in a positive manner. However, the National Audit Office found that most departments do not routinely request information directly from whistleblowers about their experience.40 Some feedback is given to departments through discussions with their nominated officers, but it is not collected in a systematic way to draw out comparable, specific data points.41 HMRC acknowledged that it needed to do further work in this area so it can report on this data going forward.42
17Whistleblower support predominantly relies on nominated officers and case-by-case handling.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked both HMRC and DWP how they currently support whistleblowers. HMRC told us the majority of support comes from nominated officers within the department but it also points people to other sources of advice and support, such as the employee assistance programme, the trade unions or the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).43 The Cabinet Office also said it is principally through the nominated officer route. DWP added that it deals with whistleblowers on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the individual and the circumstances being investigated.44
18Systematic interviews capturing whistleblower experience are not routinely conducted by departments.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked the Cabinet Office if any interviews are undertaken with whistleblowers to capture their perspective of the experience. It told us it is not aware of interviews taking place currently. There was a hesitancy from the Cabinet Office on the method of capturing feedback as it believed this could create a potential barrier to people coming forward.45 But it also told us that it agreed with the recommendation from the NAO about putting in place a process for collecting whistleblowers’ experiences and feedback, and would work with departments to ensure that happens.46 DWP noted that user experience is something that it is actively looking to put in place as soon as it possibly can, because it recognises it is a gap. It told us it is working with Cabinet Office to introduce a whistleblower survey in the department from May this year, where the whistleblower is known, to help it understand their experience.47
19Collecting systematic feedback from anonymous whistleblowers presents significant challenges for departments.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office told us that it is considering ways of capturing feedback from people who have come forward anonymously. DWP acknowledged it finds it hard to collect information from whistleblowers who are anonymous and HMRC told us it has 39 Q 11 40 Q 11; C&AG Report, para 2.22 41 Q 81 42 Q 8 43 Qq 17, 67 44 Qq 68, 69 45 Qq 78, 80, 84 46 Q 85 47 Q 4 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 13 some dialogue with anonymous individuals, but it is quite limited.48 The Cabinet Office told us it is currently working with departments to implement an anonymous feedback survey, so that it has more experiential data to improve the whistleblower’s experience.49 Sharing good practice
20Good whistleblowing practices exist but are not consistently shared across civil service departments.
Recommended (the committee's words)
There are some examples of good practice across the civil service when it comes to whistleblowing processes, but they are not always shared between departments and agencies. For example, HMRC has ‘help cards’ to improve the quality of information on concerns raised anonymously and DWP has multiple routes for raising concerns so people have different options.50 Also, the National Audit Office found that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the most whistleblowing concerns raised on average per staff member.51 The Cabinet Office commented on how the Agency had done a lot of training on how to raise issues and had a strong health and safety culture. The Cabinet Office acknowledged that there are lessons to be learned around good health and safety that often involve reporting near misses and also raising concerns when things are early or small.52
21Cabinet Office shares whistleblowing good practice through annual conferences and online community hubs.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked the Cabinet Office how it currently shares good practice. The Cabinet Office told us it holds an annual conference where it brings together nominated officers (who support whistleblowers) and policy leads (who are responsible for the policy) and HR professionals.53 It also has an online hub community of department whistleblowing leads where the Government People Group share statistics of the centrally collated data.54 DWP said it welcomed the approach that the Cabinet Office has taken in recent years to provide a network for whistleblowing across government.55
22Cabinet Office has scope to do more to actively surface and share whistleblowing best practices.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office said it could play a role in collating information across the civil service and share back what works well and what departments can do more of.56 For example, the NAO reported that some departments do not have a whistleblowing hotline,57 despite more than 80% of concerns raised each year being raised by calling a hotline, email or another written route.58 The Cabinet Office acknowledged that it could do more in terms of surfacing and sharing best practice, and that it is part of their role to facilitate that.59 It told us it was currently asking departments what they want to see Cabinet Office do more of, for example, some initial feedback had asked if the Cabinet Office could share best practice from other large organisations.60
23Departments inconsistently apply whistleblowing guidance to their associated arm’s-length bodies.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Cabinet Office guidance specifies that departments should cover their agencies as well as themselves when responding to health checks, but this is not followed by all 48 Qq 80, 82 49 Q 2 50 NAO insight - good practice guide, Whistleblowing in the civil service, 21 February 2024 51 C&AG’s Report, Figure 4 52 Qq 52, 53 53 Qq 1, 12 54 C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 55 Q 3 56 Q 33 57 Q 21 58 C&AG’s Report Figures 6, 9 59 Q 21 60 Q 12 14 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service departments.61 The Cabinet Office noted that the nature of the relationships between departments and arm’s-length bodies can vary across the civil service, departments have different working practices and so it expected that there would be some slight variances. The Cabinet Office told us it was talking to departments about how they can be more consistent in how they account for whistleblowing in their arm’s-length bodies and ensure these bodies are also following the policy.62
24Larger departments should provide more support and expertise to smaller agencies on whistleblowing.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We were interested to hear from departments on any improvements that they think can be made in terms of how they can help maintain a high standard of whistleblowing across the civil service. DWP suggested that large departments have a responsibility, as they are better resourced and have more expertise, to help support other organisations that deal with fewer cases, such as smaller agencies and arm’s-length bodies. The Cabinet Office told us it can take this idea away and look at it. DWP also said it was important for large departments to be part of the network that the Cabinet Office oversees, as well as be active partners that support smaller departments.63 61 C&AG’s Report, para 3.15 62 Qq 21, 44 63 Qq 25, 95–96 Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service 15
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 17 Apr 2024Investigation into whistleblowing in the civil service4 witnesses, listed belowparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 4 witnesses
- Esther WallingtonChief People Officer, HM Revenue and Customs
- Fiona RylandGovernment Chief People Officer, Cabinet Office
- Helen PicklesInterim Director General for People and Capability, Department for Work and Pensions
- Matthew DaviesHR Deputy Director, Cabinet Office