Who was misusing parliament’s authority by incorrectly claiming to be a registered All Party Parliamentary Group and by displaying the crowned portcullis?

Dr Minh Alexander, retired consultant psychiatrist 23 March 2025

In this post I set out a concern that I raised with the parliamentary Standards Commissioner about misrepresentation about the existence of a Whistleblowing APPG.

There was a  regrettable Whistleblowing APPG, set up with funding from US bounty hunting law firms with a vested financial interest in changing UK whistleblowing law, but it has not featured in parliament’s official APPG register since summer 2024.

This may be related to the fact that its former chair Mary Robinson lost her parliamentary seat in the last general election.

A group of parliamentarians uniting on an issue can only call itself an All Party Parliamentary Group if it is registered and it may not display the crowned portcullis, symbol of parliament, if it is not registered.

See the parliamentary rules on APPGs:

All-Party Parliamentary Groups Guide to the Rules 12 September 2023

However, despite apparent lack of registration, the website of the old Whistleblowing APPG was maintained, giving the impression that there was still a Whistleblowing APPG. It continued to display the crowned portcullis.

An X social media account (@AWhistleblowing) also continued to operate, purportedly claiming that it was the account of the Whistleblowing APPG, and it displayed the crowned portcullis. It was still active in January 2025.

The troubling private organisation WhistleblowersUK which was previously the secretariat of the old Whistleblowing APPG and has advocated for financial rewards to be introduced, continued to claim that it was the APPG secretariat on its LinkedIn account and its website.

WhistleblowersUK’s X social media account also claimed in December 2024 that Gareth Snell MP had been appointed as Chair to the Whistleblowing APPG, and copied Mr Snell and the X account at @AWhistleblowing.

I made enquiries to double check and the registrar’s office confirmed that there was indeed no registered Whistleblowing APPG.

I then raised concerns with the parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. After several exchanges of correspondence, it seemed that little action would be taken because the Commissioner’s office implied there was no applicable power. I asked (a) if the Standards Commissioner had actually seen my correspondence (b) if there was a gap in the rules which needed to be rectified. I was subsequently informed that the matters I had raised were a suitable matter to raise with the Commissioner, as an issue of misuse of parliament’s authority. It was also confirmed that the Commissioner had seen my correspondence.

As well as the possible misuse of parliamentary authority through incorrect claims that there was a Whistleblowing APPG and unauthorised use of the crowned portcullis, I also informed the Standards Commissioner that:

1. Gareth Snell MP’s published registered interests did not include any reference to the fact that he was Chair of a Whistleblowing APPG

2. Tess Munt MP was listed as a vice chair of WhistleblowersUK on WhistleblowersUK’s website but this had not featured in her published registered interests.

Following this, the old Whistleblowing APPG website was deactivated.

However, the X social media account @AWhistleblowing, purporting to be an account by the Whistleblowing APPG, remained in place.

I asked Tessa Munt to confirm if she was indeed Vice Chair of WhistleblowersUK, but as on previous occasions when I raised concerns about WhistleblowersUK, I received no response.

When I approached Gareth Snell, I received brief responses from his office which indicated that he had indeed been named as the Chair of the group but stepped down because of pressure of other commitments:

The X social media account which claimed to be an account by the Whistleblowing APPG has now finally also been altered. The same X handle @AWhistleblowing now represents itself as The “Office of the Whistleblower”:

The “Office of the Whistleblower” is a reference to a US body which runs a flawed whistleblowing programme, awarding vast sums to a very small number of financial sector whistleblowers but failing many more.

US bounty hunting lawyers wish to see an equivalent body set up in the UK, which would expand their market. But to be clear, there is currently no body called “The Office of the Whistleblower” in the UK.

WhistleblowersUK continues to claim on its LinkedIn account that it is the parliamentary secretariat to a now non-existent Whistleblowing APPG. This is how the account appears today:

Tessa Munt continues to be listed on WhistleblowersUK website as a Vice Chair of the organisation, but there is still no corresponding entry in her parliamentary registered interests.

I will ask the Standards Commissioner for an update but am unsure if this will be forthcoming. We may never know what exactly happened but it does seem for now that those who wish to turn UK whistleblowing into a lucrative business for lawyers and other middlemen have less parliamentary access than they did previously. But further attempts may be made to set up another APPG to press their aims.

Related items

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

The Ferret: “Bounty hunting” by US law firms in UK could exploit whistleblowing

Byline Times: Could Whistleblowing Become Big Business?

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

A Bounty Hunters’ Bill? A critique of the Whistleblowing APPG’s April 2022 Bill

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