The government’s outsourced and so far inaccessible review of UK whistleblowing law: The Players

Dr Minh Alexander NHS whistleblower and retired consultant psychiatrist 10 August 2023

Kevin Hollinrake MP junior minister and former vice chair of the controversial, pro bounty Whistleblowing APPG, announced a government review of UK whistleblowing law on 27 March 2023. The government gave written assurance that it would seek help from whistleblowers.

Since that announcement, the Department of Business and Trade inexplicably provided no means for whistleblowers to contribute evidence.

The Department ignored requests for clarification of how it was conducting the review and whether and how whistleblowers could contribute evidence.

Concern has been increasing as the clock runs down on the end date for the review, which the government has so far only specified as “autumn”.

Moreover, the government has resisted an FOI request for information about the conduct of its review. It has claimed that FOIA S43 “commercial interest” exemption and S27 “international relations” exemption may apply. The Department has delayed a response for another month in order to purportedly deliberate on these putative exemptions. This delay has the effect of hiding for longer whether the government has already met with and accepted evidence from Hollinrake’s former associates, the Whistleblowing APPG and WhistleblowersUK, a private company and the APPG’s much criticised external secretariat.

I have asked the Department to expedite disclosure of any data that is NOT subject to these purported deliberations about commercial interest and international relations.

Of great concern, it has also been revealed that the government has outsourced its review of UK whistleblowing law to Grant Thornton, management accounts, who have been repeatedly fined by the Financial Reporting Council for breaches of audit standards. Grant Thornton also had prior links with the Whistleblowing APPG, WhistleblowersUK and the powerful US bounty industry, which funded the establishment of the Whistleblowing APPG and will benefit from the APPG’s legislative proposals. These are summaries about this issue:

Has the UK government put a review of UK whistleblowing law in the hands of management accountants Grant Thornton?

Department for Business and Trade confirms it has hired private contractor Grant Thornton to undertake a review of UK whistleblowing law

Despite the undemocratic manoeuvre by the government in not allowing open access to its review, and not revealing who has been give access so far, there is nevertheless disturbing evidence the government has been favouring a few parties whilst keeping the majority in the dark.

Whistleblowing APPG

I wrote to Mary Robinson Chair of the Whistleblowing APPG about the fact that her APPG’s external secretariat, WhistleblowersUK appears to be implying that it has access to the government’s whistleblowing law review process.

Related to this, I asked her if the Whistleblowing APPG held information on how evidence could be submitted to the government’s review.

BY EMAIL 

Mary Robinson MP and Chair of Whistleblowing APPG 

31 July 2023

Dear Ms Robinson,

Transparency about access to the government’s review of the whistleblowing legal framework

1) I write to ask for the APPG’s assistance.

Your secretariat the company WhistleblowersUK has indicated that it will be submitting evidence to the government’s review of the whistleblowing legal framework, and that other parties who wish their evidence to be presented to the government should send their evidence to WhistleblowersUK in order to access the government’s review.

If the APPG has an arrangement with the government to submit evidence to the review, can the APPG kindly share details of how evidence can be submitted to the review by any member of the public.

I ask as there is currently no transparency about how the review is being conducted.

Many people will wish to submit evidence privately and independently of the APPG and WhistleblowersUK.

I hope that the APPG will facilitate access by all, and therefore openly disclose key issues such as who is the relevant contact at the Department of Business and Trade for the review, and their contact details, including their direct email address for submitting evidence.

Many thanks,

Dr Minh Alexander

I have received no reply to date.

I have now asked Mary Robinson for a copy of submissions by the Whistleblowing APPG to the Department of Business and Trade.

Parrhesia Inc

Parrhesia Inc a recently formed organisation, which has been granted charitable status, had been part of Hollinrake’s/ the Department of Business and Trade’s circle.

Parrhesia Inc, charity number 1193561, was registered with the charity commission on 16 February 2021. According to the Charity Commission, Parrhesia has policies on the following areas:

• Complaints handling
• Conflicting interests
• Paying staff
• Risk management
• Safeguarding vulnerable beneficiaries
• Volunteer management

According to the Charity Commission, this is Parrhesia’s governing document, which includes “impartial research and rigorous factual analysis” (apologies for the capitals, which is how the document is drafted):

Charitable objects

• THE PROMOTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION BY RESEARCH INTO THE PRACTICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING AND PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS AND EDUCATING THE PUBLIC THEREIN BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: (A) THE PROMOTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH INTO (AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE USEFUL RESULTS THEREOF) OF THE PRACTICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING AND PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS; (B) THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF JOURNALS, BOOKS, MAGAZINES, PAMPHLETS AND OTHER LITERARY WORKS TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION AND PROMOTE DISCUSSION ON TOPICS CONNECTED WITH THE OBJECTS; (C) THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING AND PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS; AND (D) TO PROMOTE AND ADVANCE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND INFORM PUBLIC DEBATE IN THOSE FIELDS WHETHER IN THE UK OR ABROAD AND IN PARTICULAR BY MAKING AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, THROUGH A PROCESS OF OBJECTIVE, IMPARTIAL RESEARCH AND RIGOROUS FACTUAL ANALYSIS, FULL, ACCURATE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION TO ASSIST SUCH PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND TO INFORM AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC DEBATE. 2) TO PROMOTE THE HUMAN RIGHTS (AS SET OUT IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SUBSEQUENT UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATIONS, AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS) OF WHISTLEBLOWERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: (A) PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ON WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; (B) CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS; (C) COMMENTING ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION RELATING TO OR IMPACTING WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS; (D) RAISING AWARENESS OF WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; (E) PROMOTING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; (F) PROMOTING RESPECT FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS; (G) INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY OF WHISTLEBLOWERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS. (3) NOTHING IN THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL AUTHORISE AN APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CLO FOR THE PURPOSES WHICH ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 OF THE CHARITIES AND TRUSTEE INVESTMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2005 AND SECTION 2 OF THE CHARITIES ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2008. NOTHING IN THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL AUTHORISE AN APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CLO FOR THE PURPOSES WHICH ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 OF THE CHARITIES AND TRUSTEE INVESTMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2005 AND SECTION 2 OF THE CHARITIES ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2008

On its website, Parrhesia states that it wishes to be thought leaders on whistleblowing:

“Aim 3 – to be, and to be seen to be, the voice of authority and influence, the thought leaders, at the policy table”   

Parrhesia declares that it does not raise funds from the public and indicates that it pursues academic, evidence-based activities to help shape UK whistleblowing policy.

Significantly, Parrhesia’s annual report for the period ending 31 March 2022  states that it supports the Whistleblowing APPG and WhistleblowersUK’s legislative agenda:

“We believe that the establishment of an independent statutory authority is urgently required to create a safe environment in which wrongdoing may be disclosed and to ensure that the rights of whistleblowers are protected, respected fulfilled. We have publicly supported the APPG on Whistleblowing, and their Secretariat (Whistleblowers UK) at the launch of a Bill proposing the establishment of the Independent Office of the Whistleblower. We have purposely included support for such an authority in our discussions with Ministers.” [my emphasis]

On 1 August 2023 I asked Parrhesia’s CEO Ian Foxley for a copy of the organisation’s submission to the government’s current review of UK whistleblowing law.

He declined to share the relevant information.

This was unexpected because Parrhesia had previously published some of its advice to ministers.

At his invitation, I additionally asked:

1. What position has Parrhesia taken on financial rewards/ incentives for whistleblowers?

2. How did you/ Parrhesia come to be in contact with the Department of Business and Trade? (I am interested in the Department’s process).

Ian Foxley has replied on these two points in correspondence which he asked me not to publish.

But there is some information in the public domain about Parrhesia’s past stance on financial rewards, and it appears rather contradictory.

The above 2022 statement of support for the Whistleblowing APPG and WhistleblowersUK’s Bill, as recorded in Parrhesia’s annual report, could be seen as de facto supportive of opening the legislative door to bounty hunting in the UK and to more profit for US bounty hunting law firms.

But this statement of support in the annual report seems at odds with a published joint position statement by Foxley and the CEO of Protect on 9 May 2022. This rejected the Whistleblowing APPG and WhistleblowersUK’s Bill and legislative bid to entirely replace current law and replace it with their model of an Office of the Whistleblower.

Foxley’s joint submission with Protect, on behalf of Parrhesia, stated:

“We believe that fundamentally any OWB should supplement rather than replace existing arrangements.”

“Those proposing to introduce an Office of the Whistleblower (OWB) often make comparisons with the US whistleblowing bodies, including the OWB within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) but this only deals with whistleblowing about financial matters…”

“…we do not wish to see the current tribunal structure replaced with a rewards or ‘bounty’ based programme issued by a central regulator or body.”

I have asked Parrhesia’s CEO to let me share some minimal facts about the organisation’s role and current position which I feel is of public interest.

Protect

Protect says it has not yet made a submission to the whistleblowing law review, but it appeared to have had some level of contact before others were given access:

From the above the reader may come to the conclusion that the government does not want contributions from grassroots whistleblowers, especially those who are opposed to the proposed Office of the Whistleblower.

I have directly asked Sara Wallin, the civil servant who is a point of contact for whistleblowing law review, how I and other whistleblowers might be able to contribute evidence.

She has so far not answered on this point.

As above, the Department of Business and Trade is also kicking an FOI request which seeks greater transparency about its review process and involved parties, into the long grass.

As a test, I also asked Grant Thornton how I or other whistleblowers could submit evidence to Grant Thornton. So far, this has been met with silence. (And I do not recommend that whistleblowers submit sensitive personal data to Grant Thornton in any case).

So, we wait to see who else will be allowed through the Departmental sluice gates, or alternatively, whose evidence will be flung in the shredder.

UPDATE

Ian Foxley has responded to decline my open sharing of information about Parrhesia’s role and current position.

RELATED ITEMS

Byline Times published an article on 8 August 2023 about criticism of Ian Foxley for the way in which he handled a concern about Martin Bright a Parrhesia trustee, and issues arising from the scandal about Nick Cohen a former Guardian journalist:

Founder of Whistle-Blowing Charity Responds to Complainant by ‘Passing on’ Her Name and Suggesting She Calls Friend of Alleged Abuser

“Klingler wrote to Foxley and Parrhesia: “I was looking back through the most vocal supporters of Nick Cohen and was shocked that a trustee of a whistleblowing charity was publicly defending an [alleged] sexual harasser…I don’t know either of the men in question and haven’t met his [alleged] victims, but as a woman who encourages women to come to your charity for support with whistleblowing claims; I have to question how that conflict works within your organisation.”

In correspondence seen by Byline Times, Ian Foxley initially replied with information about having a daughter, adding he supported his trustee – and crucially, saying Bright “would be pleased to speak directly with you”.

Klingler alleged: “I gave him a second chance: I went back to him and said: “That actually raises more questions than it answers.” The fact that Ian gave him my information when someone could retaliate against me in the media about it…he just brushed it off.”

UPDATE 12 AUGUST 2023

An organisation which is listed on Parrhesia Inc’s website as a “partner” of Parrhesia, Civil Society, has published an article on how Parrhesia will be reviewing its complaint policy in the light of the above incident. The article lacks searching questions. Was this crisis management assistance for Parrhesia? I have still not seen any meaningful, unqualified apology by Parrhesia to Jamie Klingler.

The Whistleblowing Hunger Games: Why we should reject the Whistleblowing APPG

New research: US bounty hunting model, cronyism and the revolving door between regulators and bounty hunting law firms

WhistleblowersUK’s new financial contract with whistleblowers

Prime Minister’s Anti Corruption Champion backs creation of flawed Whistleblowing Regulator controlled by the government

Whistleblowing v Bounty hunting. A new whistleblowing APPG with sponsorship from bounty hunters

Qui Tam. A tale of malicious informants and corruption in ye Olde England. And its evolution to the modern bounty hunting model

Tory MP Kevin Hollinrake who called for whistleblower “incentives” is now in a ministerial role, launching a review of UK whistleblowing law

A current Parrhesia trustee was reportedly in attendance with WhistleblowersUK at an annual symposium on economic crime in 2015:

Kevin Hollinrake is still listed as a member of Parrhesia’s policy advisory group, although this may be out of date given his ministerial role: