There was a telling exchange in written questions in the Commons yesterday:
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North, Labour)
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
(1) which Minister in his Department is responsible for overseeing his Department's whistleblowing policy;
(2) what steps his Department is taking to protect whistleblowers; and if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's whistleblowing policy.
Sajid Javid(Bromsgrove, Conservative)
In accordance with the Civil Service Code and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the Treasury has two nominated officers for investigating staff concerns: (i) a non-executive board member of the Treasury Board and Chair of the Treasury Group Audit Committee; and (ii) its Head of Internal Audit. Ultimately, the Treasury's Permanent Secretary is responsible for the Department's whistleblowing policy. The Treasury's policy on whistleblowing is available to all its staff via its internal website. The information requested will be deposited in the Library of the House.
The trouble is it was a permanent secretary - Dave Hartnett - who set out to discredit Osita Mba when he whistle blew, appropriately.
The system is therefore inherently flawed.
Why didn't Sajid Javid acknowledge that obvious fact?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard,
The truth is that the Public Interest Disclosure Act does not operate in full Whitehall. The Civil Service Rules still requires civil servants who cannot raise concerns internally to resign — reporting the matter to external bodies like the National Audit Office or to a Parliamentary Committee as Mr Mba remains a serious breach of the Civil Service Rules to this very day. That is the real scandal here because the Civil Service Rules breach both the Public Interest Disclosure Act and Parliamentary Privilege. I imagine this is why there is such a panic in Whitehall about Mba’s unprecedented and brave actions.
The Public Administration Select Committee looked into this matter in 2009 and reached this conclusion: “The Public Interest Disclosure Act sets an appropriate framework that balances competing interests in almost all of the exceptional circumstances where leaking might be considered justified. However, there should also be a mechanism by which evidence that the Government has misled Parliament or the public, or failed to act on concerns that have be raised, can be investigated and reported to Parliament.”
In other words, where Parliament has been misled, as HMRC did on the sweetheart tax deals (almost certainly with the acquiescence if not support of HMT) there is no mechanism for reporting this to Parliament (with all their Parliamentary privilege) let alone to an official body like the NAO.
The Public Administration Select Committee recommended a change in their report http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/83/8302.htm but the Labour government rejected this in their response http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm78/7863/7863.pdf
So, if Labour are prepared to change their policy on Whistleblowing in Whitehall, they should say so.
I agree
I hope they do
The truth is that the Public Interest Disclosure Act does not operate in full Whitehall. The Civil Service Rules still requires civil servants who cannot raise concerns internally to resign — reporting the matter to external bodies like the National Audit Office or to a Parliamentary Committee as Mr Mba remains a serious breach of the Civil Service Rules to this very day.
…and potentially in some cases a criminal matter. Remember Katharine Gun?
Perhaps he’s too dim to work it out, Richard. Then again, perhaps he’ not, recognises the conflict of interest, but as with so many ministers, politicians and public servants in our corporatised government and public sector regards it as par for the course.
On a more general note, I think we (the public) need to accept that almost every aspect of whistleblowing policy right across government and public service is rhetoric and sham – pure and simple. In that sense it shares a pedigree with that other topic much discussed on your blog – tax avoidance.
And why is this? Because the people making and/or implementing such policies have absolutely no belief in their value or worth. Indeed it would seem that in the case of whistleblowing senior management that publicly supports government rhetoric about the value and protection of whistleblowers are simultaneously being complicit in their gagging and persecution. This is, quite simply, public policy for PR purposes.
I have a whistle too blow .
hmrc abusing its powers to use si and governance and its resources (intell)
to sweep 13 years of acknowledged and undisputed mistakes under the carpet.
I have conclusive proof of a lack of transparency and unaccountability. abuse of the parliamentary ombudsman and much much more.
antbody want to know more
Send it to Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee. That way you will protected by parliamentary privilege.
The question referred to the Chancellor’s Department – the Treasury. So the answer is quite correct and has nothing to do with HMRC, which is a non-ministerial department, or Dave Hartnett who was a Permanent Secretary in HMRC.
A Treasury minister – David Gauke – speaks for HMRC
Please do not be so absurd as to suggest HMRC is beyond control – or at least, should be
Quite right, Richard. David Gauke is the Treasury Minister for HMRC. As reported in the Guardian recently, HMRC sought and obtained his permission to smear Mr Mba, so the question to him is in order. Of course, when difficult questions are raised about HMRC, Gauke will claim that HMRC is a ‘non-ministerial department’ – typical!