Protect – Speak up stop harm

Free, confidential whistleblowing advice
Call us on 020 3117 2520 or email us

Donate
Protect – Speak up stop harm
Donate

Free, confidential whistleblowing advice
Call us on 020 3117 2520 or email us

Lords vote to introduce a duty to investigate whistleblowing

The House of Lords has voted to introduce a new duty to investigate whistleblowing concerns placing an obligation on employers to act when whistleblowers speak up.

This would mean organisations with more than 50 staff, or a turnover of more than £10 million, will have to investigate the whistleblowing concerns that are brought to them.

The amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, proposed by Protect and drafted by Lord Michael Wills (Labour) was supported by Baroness Susan Kramer (Lib Dem) and Baroness Nicky Morgan of Cotes (Conservative) and passed with a 98 majority yesterday (16 July).

Whistleblowers provide employers with a vital early warning system, and many large employers recognise the benefits they bring. By ensuring there are processes to deal with workplace wrongdoing, this duty would ensure employers have to deal with potential harm early on, rather than allowing the issues to fester.  The amendment also requires the government to review the unfair dismissal test which creates too high a hurdle for whistleblowers at tribunals.

A YouGov poll* commissioned by Protect in May 2025 found that two thirds (66%) of workers want a legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns raised by employees. Research by the Association of Fraud Examiners found that 42% of fraud cases they studied were uncovered by tips with a majority reported by employees. A legal duty on employers would help employers mitigate this risk and root out fraud within the workplace.

Baroness Susan Kramer said in the debate: “While we wait for fundamental reform, we need immediate improvement to some of the worst features of the current system of supposed whistleblower protection.” She added “I am very pleased so many of my colleagues agreed that change is needed now”.

Lord Wills said: “Time and again we see whistleblowers raise important concerns that are swept under the carpet. From concerns about patient safety to failures in construction and building sites – ignoring problems impacts lives and livelihoods. The government has already acknowledged the need for whistleblowers to receive greater protection so I would like to see them seize this rare legislative opportunity to bring in such protection after an appropriate time for consultation to fine tune such new protections.”

Protect Chief Executive, Elizabeth Gardiner, said: “We are delighted the amendment was passed. If accepted, this would herald a huge step forward in improving the way whistleblowing is dealt with in the workplace. Currently employers are under no obligation to look into the issues that whistleblowers bring to them. We know only too well, that it’s often the whistleblower themselves that is investigated, rather than the concerns they raise. In recent years we have seen scandals rock the country despite whistleblowers raising the alarm early on. When their warnings are ignored, disastrous consequences have followed impacting lives and livelihoods. Forcing employers to follow through when a member of their staff raises concern will boost accountability and give future whistleblowers more confidence that action will be taken when they speak up.”

Notes to Editors:  

For more information, and to arrange an interview, please contact:   

YouGov survey*:
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2121 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2nd – 3rd June 2025.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Would you support or oppose a law requiring employers to investigate all whistleblowing concerns?

Support 66%
Oppose 3%
No strong feelings either way 23%
Don’t know 8%

 

Details of the amendment:

“Regulations to protect whistleblowers

(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to—

(a) extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure, and

(b) require employers to take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under section 43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

(2) Regulations made under subsection 1 apply to any employer with—

(a) 50 or more employees,

(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more,

(c) operations in financial services, or

(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing.

(3) When making regulations under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” should include.

(4) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”

Details of the amendment in Hansard

Recent Posts

The end of the road for NDAs? 

Ever since the #Metoo movement began in 2017, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) have been exposed as tools to silence victims of harassment and bullying, and whistleblowers.  Now following years of campaigning an amendment has been introduced to the Employment Rights Bill to block employers from using such agreements. This amendment is a novel approach, instead of stating when NDAs can be breached, there is general ban on their use with exceptions on when they can be used in harassment and discrimination cases.

One person we have to thank for this political intervention is Zelda Perkins who worked with Harvey Weinstein in the 1990s and had to sign an NDA in a settlement agreement. Zelda has been at the forefront of the fight to introduce a ban for many years. The organisation she founded, Can’t Buy My Silence UK, has argued that while NDAs may be necessary to protect commercially sensitive information, they have become widely used to silence victims of bullying, sexual harassment or abuse, especially in lower-income sectors like retail and hospitality.

The detail is yet to be mapped out, as well as a timeline for implementation, but while there has been a resounding chorus of approval, some have voiced concerns that the ban could result in some unintended consequences. So, what does this really mean for both sides of the table?

Impact for individuals 

There have been many high-profile cases of NDAs being used to prevent victims from speaking out about crimes. Mohammed Al Fayed used his wealth and power to hide his abuse, often forcing women and vulnerable individuals to feel stuck in unwanted situations, through fear or desperation. Likewise, we have seen Harvey Weinstein and Crispin Odey, the hedge-fund manager, use NDAs as robust shields allowing them to operate in plain sight.

In the future in discrimination or harassment cases any agreement between a worker and an employee- including when an employee’s employment is terminated- an NDA will be null and void (with some exceptions yet to be spelt out). This will allow people to speak openly about their experiences along with the reasons behind their termination and the circumstances leading to it. Perpetrators of harassment and discrimination will be exposed and unable to buy their victims’ silence.

Witnesses to poor behaviour will also be protected if they call it out and publicly support victims without the threat of being sued. While whistleblowers have always had protection, few are aware of their rights so this nod to witnesses is important.

Impact for employers 

Employers will need to review confidentiality wording in their employment contracts, policies and settlement agreements, to ensure that they are compliant. Although NDAs are already banned to some extent under whistleblowing legislation, this new amendment goes further. It will make NDAs potentially illegal and may make NDAs about the employer’s reaction to harassment issues illegal too. There will be some excepted NDAs though (for instance if they are requested by the victim) so in practice, a lot will depend on the detail of the regulation. The amendment additionally allows for the Secretary of State to extend the voiding provision by regulation to include individuals who worked as trainees and contractors.

A note of caution 

While a ban on NDAs in discrimination, bullying and harassment cases looks on paper like the ideal situation, as ever there may be unforeseen outcomes that were never intended. For example: 

  • Some have argued that employers could be less willing to settle in employment disputes without having the option of an NDA to protect their public reputation. This could result in disputes being pushed down a costly employment tribunal route even where an employee wants to reach a settlement agreement. However, Can’t Buy My Silence have pointed to Ireland and California where similar bans on NDAs are in place with no evidence of a reduction in cases being settled. 
  • A ban on NDAs could impact victims who want the comfort of knowing their case can never be talked about by their employer. For some individuals there is security in knowing that certain experiences can be locked away and never revealed again. The proposal is that in cases where the request comes from the victim (not the employer) then an NDA may be used. However, even if the victim requests an NDA, the government has proposed that the victim should still be able to speak to some people about their experience such as a mental health professional.
  • While we’re yet to see the full details of the regulation that will fill out the law, an initial reading of the amendment suggests it does not seem to apply to those who do fall outside the legal definition of “worker”, nor to armed forces, security services or parliamentary staff. While this mirrors a similar clause in whistleblowing law (s43J) this does present an obvious gap considering continued coverage of sexual harassment and discrimination issues in the army and Parliament in recent years. 

Regulations are to follow, and further consultation is promised. We’d like to see the government update the roadmap for the Employment Rights Bill to include the NDA amendment implementation date. This will give both individuals and employers more clarity on when this change will come into force. However, this is a win for all those victims of harassment and discrimination who have felt unable to speak even to close friends and family about appalling behaviour at work. No one should be silenced like this and we have a lot to thank Zelda for. 

For a deeper dive into the history of the campaign to ban NDAs do listen to this podcast from the Guardian featuring Zelda Perkins: 

All Blog Posts

BBC accepts “opportunities were missed” over Gregg Wallace affair

front page newspapers with coverage of Gregg Wallace story

A report into the behaviour of BBC Masterchef presenter Gregg Wallace has substantiated 45 allegations made against him, including claims of inappropriate sexual language and one incident of unwelcome physical contact. The BBC has accepted that opportunities were missed to address poor behaviour – so what can others learn from this case?

The report, compiled by the law firm Lewis Silkin, was commissioned following the BBC News coverage concerning allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and inappropriate behaviour by 13 people who had worked with Wallace across a 17-year period. The BBC has subsequently reported that 50 more people have made  fresh claims about the TV presenter.

The report’s findings raise a number of questions regarding how allegations had been handled in the past – by both the BBC and the production company Banijay UK – and the inadequate whistleblowing systems and processes for raising complaints and concerns.

BBC statement:

“Although the full extent of these issues were not known at the relevant time, opportunities were missed to address this behaviour – both by the production companies running Masterchef and the BBC. We accept more could and should have been done sooner.”

This serves as another reminder of how it can be easy to miss the big picture when concerns are managed individually and in isolation. However, it would be naïve to think that those closest to Mr Wallace and the TV production team will not have been aware of the concerns raised. This potentially serves as another example of “professional enablers” safeguarding a high-profile individual at the expense of junior and vulnerable staff.

The production company Banijay UK and the BBC said the number of sustained allegations made Wallace’s return to MasterChef untenable and the BBC confirmed they had no plans to work with him in the future.

Our own research has found that younger workers are less likely to blow the whistle to their employer compared to older generations. But when asked what they were most likely to speak up about at work Gen Z workers (18–24-year-olds) put sexual and racial harassment as their top issues, confirming general assumptions that younger workers are less willing to tolerate such behaviour in a workplace.

Sadly, we know it is the most vulnerable, and those with the most to lose, that hold back from speaking up. In a sector dominated by self-employed, freelance and casual workers anyone blowing the whistle about work-based issues knows it could result in blacklisting and an end to a career in the creative industries.

All employers with a young workforce, or who work with freelancers and contractors need to understand the barriers that exist to speaking up, even about serious misconduct.

Good employers don’t just have a policy – they actively encourage speaking up, through training and regular communications. They promise to act on reports and investigate swiftly and fairly. They don’t confuse whistleblowing about systematic failures with individual grievances. They don’t just wait for reports, they ensure there are multiple channels and ways of raising concerns and they actively listen when people speak up. They have oversight at board level and can spot trends. Crucially, they allow all those who work with or for them – not just permanent direct employees – to raise and escalate concerns. 

All Blog Posts

What’s next for whistleblowing in the NHS 

doctors in scrubs in an operating theatre

So farewell National Guardian’s Office – the home of Freedom to Speak Up guardians (FTSU) and the champion for openness and transparency within the NHS. After just over 9 years since it was created following the recommendations from Sir Robert Francis KC’s “Freedom to Speak Up” review, the NHS agency is being closed and enveloped into the work of NHS England. 

"We want to thank our dedicated staff, the thousands of guardians we have trained, the many managers who listen to workers, and the leaders who have championed Freedom to Speak Up. Over the past nine years, the National Guardian's Office has supported the healthcare system to improve workplace cultures, ensuring workers are confident to speak up. We have done this by providing expert support, guidance, and challenge. The closure of the National Guardian's Office marks the end of a vital chapter in the ongoing effort to ensure every voice is heard, respected, and protected in the health service. All the staff at the National Guardian's Office, past and present, remain immensely proud of the impact made and are grateful to the community of individuals whose commitment to speaking up has carried this work forward. We will remain focused on the values of courage, impartiality, empathy and learning as we support the transition of functions to NHS England so that the voice of workers continues to be a voice that counts."
statement from the National Guardian's Office

The government’s new 10 Year Health Plan for England “Fit for the Future” promises to build on the National Guardian’s work and align it “with other national staff voice functions, such as the existing freedom to speak up case management function – meaning the distinct role of the guardian will no longer be required”. How this will work in practice is yet unknown – but what is clear is that any new system needs to  ensure the NHS Speak Up system is working, staff have confidence in it and issues get addressed, before they reach scandal status. 

In our evidence to the Thirlwall Inquiry in December 2024 – we presented key evidence relating to the FTSU guardians system. Drawing on the data from our whistleblowing Advice Line we shared that although FTSU guardians provide to some a really precious and valuable source of help, many of our callers tell us that the FTSU guardian they had contacted failed to provide any meaningful support. There often seems to be confusion about the role of the FTSU guardians: is it to provide support to the whistleblower or is it to escalate the concern and/or hold the trust to account when the concern is not properly addressed? We know that many guardians are under-resourced and have to balance a caseload of grievances alongside serious whistleblowing concerns without the ability to prioritise the latter. We also know that there is a wide variability in how NHS Trusts implement the role. 

The “Fit for the Future” policy paper suggests the government is keen to ensure that concerns raised by staff will be acted on more quickly: 

“Many of the NHS’ worst scandals happened – or lasted longer – because staff were ignored, or did not feel able to speak up. We will act more quickly on staff concerns. The National Guardian for Freedom to Speak Up in the NHS trains and supports a network of 1,300 freedom to speak up guardians across England, offering guidance to encourage employees to share concerns about patient safety. Now that these guardians have been established, we will do more to integrate their role.” 

We are pleased to see the “Fit for the Future” policy paper address holding senior leaders to account. We have been calling for measures to increase managers’ and leaders’ accountability and ensure they respond to whistleblowers effectively for many years. Protect supports calls for senior managers and directors to be held to professional standards, subjected to a fit and proper persons test and banned from holding senior managerial positions where it has been shown they have ignored or victimised a whistleblower. A consultation in 2024 presented proposals to regulate NHS managers and this new 10 year Health Plan for England sets out new measures for this area:  

“For senior leaders who let their profession and colleagues down – whether through dishonest behaviour, by silencing whistle-blowers or covering up unsafe practice – we will legislate to establish a new system to disbar them from ever taking leadership roles in the NHS again. We know from our engagement that both the public and staff want failure to have consequences, and for us to bring an end to trend of people ‘failing upwards’ in the NHS.”

As the National Guardian Office’s team transition into NHS England and ways of working are established, we believe there are further areas that need to be addressed: 

Board Oversight 

All NHS Boards should designate someone with responsibility for overseeing the effectiveness of whistleblowing arrangements in their organisation.  At present, Boards receive reports on “speaking up” via their FTSU guardians but this is not the only way that individuals can blow the whistle inside the NHS. Many whistleblowers will raise concerns with their line managers, or to a director without any FTSU involvement and it is unclear how this data is captured, or what experience they have.  A Board non-exec role as “the Whistleblowers’ Champion” could ensure that the right questions are asked at Board level about all the whistleblowing channels and whether processes are working effectively.  

Speak up oversight from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 

We welcome the commitment to widen the CQC’s inspection remit to include freedom to speak up functions.  

“As part of its wider inspection responsibilities, a core function of CQC will be to assess whether every provider (and in time, ICB [Integrated Care Boards]) has effective freedom to speak up functions, and the right skills and training in place.”

In the NHS in England and Wales there is a complex matrix of regulators and none seems to act directly on whistleblowers’ reports that have been ignored or victimised. Whistleblowers do not have a clear path outside of their Trusts to highlight failures of the Trust’s whistleblowing arrangements and to put pressure on their Trust to improve. We would like to see the CQC to adopt a similar model to the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer (INWO) in Scotland, where clear whistleblowing or speak up standards are legally set for Scotland NHS health organisations. This is supported by investigations if these standards are not meet, holding both the organisations and senior leaders to account for any breaches.  

Fully Reform the Freedom to Speak Up System 

The Freedom to Speak Up guardian system was an innovation when it was first created, and we continue to support the idea of an individual in each Trust supporting whistleblowers to speak up. However, research has shown that the role is often too large and under-resourced to work effectively. We suggest that FTSU guardians focus on their role of supporting individual whistleblowers and that the role of changing the culture – to one in which whistleblowing is valued and encouraged – sits squarely with senior leadership including the Board. 

This refocus of the FTSU guardians should be backed up with a widening of the CQC remit to oversee a set of clear standards on speak up arrangements that they can regulate including holding senior leaders to account when these standards are not met. 

All Blog Posts

The contributions of whistleblowers – MPs debate

“Whistleblowers help us see the unseen, name the unnamed and hold the untouchable to account.” 

A powerful statement from Labour’s Phil Brickell MP as he kicked off his speech in a Westminster Hall debate on the Contributions of Whistleblowers, held to mark World Whistleblowers Day. The session brought together key parliamentarians with strong opinions and perspectives on how the law and whistleblowing needs to be modernised. From exposing the lack of legal protections for self-employed people to pushing for a legal duty on employers to investigate matters that are raised by whistleblowers, the session included strong arguments that the whistleblowing legal framework is not working well enough, with the government minister Justin Madders, conceding the case for change. 

The debate was hosted by Labour MP and Anti-Corruption APPG member Lloyd Hatton, who opened the debate with a strong speech highlighting the importance of whistleblowers in combating  corruption and fraud. He highlighted that 43% of fraud was detected by tip-offs last year and started the debate by calling on the government to introduce a legal duty for organisations to investigate the issues raised by whistleblowers. 

Labour MP and former employment law solicitor Sarah Russell spoke of her experience  with  whistleblowing cases  and the difficulties of proving and winning for the whistleblower, because employers can too easily say the dismissal or resignation of a whistleblower was due to their behaviour and the manner in which they blew the whistle, rather than because the whistleblower spoke up. She also referenced an investigation by Inside Housing magazine where a whistleblower working to assess fire risks in social housing warned of a culture of cover-up, and experts being put under pressure to downgrade risks to save money. Being self-employed the assessors acted without the protection of whistleblowing laws – a gap Russell said needed to be filled to better protect workers. 

Phil Brickell’s speech focused on tackling economic crime. He urged companies to be required to investigate whistleblower concerns relating to economic crime, with independent oversight of those investigations, in line with our existing amendment to the Employment Rights Bill which has been supported by the former minister, Lord Wills. Secondly, he urged the Government to consider establishing a central whistleblowing body that can offer advice, support and a safe route to report wrongdoing, akin to the Office of the Whistleblower proposal. 

The debate also heard from the DUP MP Jim Shannon who shared a story about a personal friend of his who blew the whistle and suffered terrible consequences as a result. He pushed the Minister to commit that whistleblowing legislation will be as strong in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrat spokesman Steve Darling highlighted his party’s support for an Office of the Whistleblower, the strengthening of whistleblower laws and a culture change in supporting whistleblowers. Meanwhile the Conservative spokesman, Shadow Minister Greg Smith, highlighted the previous government’s support for whistleblowers, including expanding the list of prescribed persons, introducing new protections for whistleblowers in health and social care, and establishing whistleblowing channels across Government Departments.  

In responding to the arguments presented in the debate the government minister Justin Madders conceded the current law allows employers to ignore whistleblowing disclosures – although referenced that regulators and other prescribed persons could be approached if an employer does not act. The minister also acknowledged the gaps in the law – specifically relating to self-employed people, non-executive directors and charity trustees – and noted our campaigns on expanding protections for whistleblowers and helpfully stated that his officials will continue to engage with us on these issues.   

It is an important development that a government minister is responding to Protect’s proposals, and that he has acknowledged the current deficiencies in the law. Finally, he stated that the long awaited Whistleblowing Framework Review – commissioned in 2023 under the Sunak conservative government – would be released shortly. While it will not contain any concrete policy recommendations he said, “I believe it will be something we can build on in terms of moving forward in this debate.” A commitment of sorts and something we will be sure of holding the minster to when the review is published.  

All Blog Posts

Talkin’ bout my generation – does your age impact your attitude to whistleblowing

On Tuesday 24 June we hosted a fantastic event with Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) to launch our latest research – Attitudes to Whistleblowing, exploring how views towards Speaking Up differ across the generations. 

With the world of work undergoing seismic shifts in recent years – from the acceleration of remote working to growing expectations around corporate ethics – we wanted to find out how today’s employees feel about whistleblowing and what this means for employers. Supported by LBG, we commission a You Gov survey* and held focus groups to probe workers of different ages on how they view whistleblowing and what employers could do to encourage them to speak up. 

Main findings 

  • Majority of staff are willing to speak up but younger workers are less likely to raise concerns compared to older generations. 
  • The majority (86%) of workers aged 55 and over and 80% of 45-54 year-olds said health and safety concerns would trigger reporting. The biggest area of concern for younger workers was addressing sexual harassment (67% for 18-24 year olds and 76% for 25-34 year olds). 
  • 70% of the 18–24-year-olds said their employer would manage things very well or fairly well but this decreased to just under 50% of the 55+ age group. 
  • Barriers to reporting wrongdoing varied between age groups, with millennials (35-44 year olds) concerned with mental health issues more than any other age group and 18-24 year olds most concerned about jeopardising others people’s jobs. ​ 

At our launch event we were joined by a panel of speakers who shared their expertise and experience  

They all gave their take on the research and what they felt employers needed to consider going forward. 

Daniil homed in on the fact the research had shown that younger people were more likely to raise concerns that impacted the individual – harassment, discrimination, etc… compared to older workers who logged fraud and health and safety as the most pressing issues. He aligned with the research findings regarding wanting to report issues anonymously and wanted reassurance that action would be taken if he raised a concern. Reflecting on the way employers roll out online training he made the point that his generation are digital-native and less likely to be engaged with standard AI-voiced training modules. His rallying call was for Speak Up teams to ensure they were making their training engaging and memorable. 

Tina reflected on her own experience of being a whistleblower and sadly, not having a great experience with her employer. Drawing on her work in the HR field she identified with the research that illustrated that staff will often start a new job with “baggage” they accumulated in previous roles that will impact their view and trust of Speaking Up. In a question from the floor about working with Trade Unions, Tina said it was crucial for all organisations to include unions in the development and review of whistleblowing policies, and to set them up as a reporting line, she said “if they know you’re advocating for them then they will be keener to get onboard”. Tina also shared her experiences of dealing with what she termed “toxic positivity” workplace cultures where people only talk about the good things, and any mentions of areas of concern or improvement are looked down upon. This, she said, was a dangerous path to tread as it puts staff in difficult positions when trying to raise an issue or call out problems. 

Peter said that it was hugely encouraging that the research found so many people confident to go to their line managers if they had something to raise. This, he felt, went against the conceptions that remote working culture was damaging in-person relationships. But he drew attention to the fact that while 70% of 18-24 year olds had said they were confident their employer would deal with whistleblowing concerns well – this still left 28% (more than a quarter) who did not. As the one generation as yet untainted by the world of work he felt this needed to be addressed. 

Drawing on his work identifying generational differences Peter said it is important to know what your staff aren’t telling you. He raised an example of Gen Z staff using Glassdoor to share issues about their employer – things they had never raised or told their line managers about previously. With such a digitally fluent generation, he suggested providing opportunities to share issues, concerns, thoughts in a safe internal online space could prevent these topics from escaping into the public realm. And while saying all this about Gen Z, as a member of Gen X himself he said he wanted all this too!  

You can download the report here.

We really hope this research sheds light on how values, work habits, and risk tolerance can shape whether and how different generations raise concerns. We also hope it offers insights for employers seeking to build trust and transparency across a multigenerational workforce. Ensuring you are appealing and addressing the needs of your whole workforce is essential and if you’re only just getting your head around managing Gen Z in the workplace, don’t get complacent – Generation Alpha are just around the corner… 

 

* YouGov survey  

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2121 adults, including 140 aged 18-24. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2nd – 3rd June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). 

All Blog Posts

Gen-Z less likely to blow the whistle at work compared to older colleagues

New research by the UK’s whistleblowing charity Protect shows that Gen-Z (those aged 18–24-year-olds) are less likely to blow the whistle to their employer compared to older generations. Across every area of potential wrongdoing – from health and safety to fraud and bullying – Gen Z were less likely to raise a concern with their employer compared to every other generation.  

A YouGov survey* commissioned by Protect to mark World Whistleblowers’ Day asked people what they would be likely to raise if they witnessed an incident in the workplace. 

  • Someone’s health or safety being put in danger came out as the biggest issue (77%), with 86% of those age 55 and over saying they would raise a concern, compared with only 56% of Gen Zs.  
  • The youngest workers (18–24-year-olds) put addressing sexual harassment as their top issue with two thirds of Gen Zs (67%) saying they would raise it if they witnessed it at work. This compares with  three quarters (76%) of Millennials (25-34 year olds).  
  • This trend was replicated across all areas of concern type with younger people (18–24-year-olds) saying they were less likely to raise issues when compared to their older colleagues. 

Gen Z put sexual and racial harassment as their top issues, confirming general assumptions that younger workers are less willing to tolerate such behaviour in a workplace. 

When asked whether people would ever post on social media about workplace issues only a small minority of Gen X and Boomers said they would consider this, compared to Gen Z and younger Millennials. 18-24 year olds were five times more likely to post on social media about some serious work issues than those aged 55 and over (5% compared to < 1%). Similarly, there was a stark difference between the generations when it came to blowing the whistle via the media where 13% of 18–24-year-olds said they were willing to approach journalists, compared to 1% for those aged 55+. 

Sybille Raphael, Legal Director at Protect, said:  

“Despite the perceptions that Gen Z are more vocal than other generations about bad behaviour in the workplace, our research shows that they are less likely to blow the whistle to their employer than their older colleagues. They are less clear about what to raise and how to raise to their employer and more willing to use social media or traditional media. 

“We’re starting to see a shift in what different generations value in work, and what they consider important for their employers and for themselves personally. Our research sees younger people more likely to call out issues relating to sexual harassment than fraud or corporate cover-ups. 

“The newest recruits in a workplace, the freshest pairs of eyes, are usually more likely to spot issues than those who have become accustomed to embedded behaviours. It is therefore especially important that employers communicate clearly on whistleblowing when on-boarding new staff and  regularly review their whistleblowing arrangements to build trust and confidence.” 

The research forms the basis for a new briefing for employers examining the differences in attitudes and experiences to whistleblowing across the generations.  

 

Notes to Editors:  

For more information, and to arrange an interview, please contact:   

YouGov survey*:
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2121 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2nd – 3rd June 2025.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Data tables

Question: (option to select all that apply)

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
Someone’s health or safety being put in danger 56% 70% 77% 80% 86%
Someone stealing or defrauding money from your employer, customer or service user 59% 64% 71% 75% 79%
If I believe someone is covering up wrongdoing 36% 51% 58% 58% 60%
The company breaking the law (for example does not have the right insurance) 43% 51% 56% 55% 59%
Actions that risk or actually damage the environment 39% 47% 48% 47% 46%
Breach of company policy 29% 35% 38% 40% 36%
Discriminatory behaviour 55% 66% 67% 67% 64%
Sexual harassment 67% 76% 77% 77% 78%
Racial harassment 62% 68% 70% 72% 71%
Bullying 60% 69% 72% 76% 80%

 

Question: Would you ever post on social media about workplace issues that you believe are of public interest?

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
I would post on social media about more trivial work issues 7% 6% 3% 2% 1%
I would post on social media about SOME serious work issues, but not all 15% 9% 5% 2% 3%
I would post on social media about all work issues, no matter how serious they were 4% 3% 2% 1% 1%
I would never post on social media about any work issue 61% 72% 81% 84% 90%
Don’t know 12% 10% 10% 11% 6%

 

Question: If you were to witness wrongdoing or malpractice in the workplace that affected others …Which, if any, of the following actions would you take? (option to select all that apply)

Actions 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
Leave and find a new job 8% 5% 6% 4% 3%
Follow my employer’s whistleblowing process 27% 36% 44% 42% 47%
Tell my manager/supervisor about it 61% 63% 63% 59% 59%
Tell someone else – friends, family etc 33% 26% 21% 22% 19%
Tell your union rep 21% 15% 13% 14% 22%
Post about it on social media 5% 3% 1% 1% 0%
Go to the press/media 13% 2% 2% 5% 1%
Other 3% 4% 2% 4% 3%
Don’t know 11% 8% 8% 9% 7%

 

 

 

Recent Posts

Employment Tribunal turns 60

a blurred out image showing informal judges on a panel

The 31st May 2025 marks sixty years of Employment Tribunals (ETs) coming into being. Previously called Industrial Tribunals, they were originally intended to provide “an easily accessible, speedy, informal and inexpensive procedure” for resolving employment disputes.[1] Set up to be used by litigants in person – people representing themselves without a lawyer – the reality is that the procedural and legal process is very confusing and challenging to understand for an unrepresented litigant, which is discussed in Struck Out, a 2012 book on employment tribunals:

“Tribunals are supposed to be accessible courts […] Yet many litigants find Tribunals closed and off-putting places. The language of the court is highly formal. The procedure of Tribunals is fixed. Parties address the court in a fixed order. Factual submissions are made before legal submissions. To be most effective in putting their case, even an unrepresented claimant will be expected to copy some of the mannerisms of an experienced barrister addressing a higher court.”

Now a cornerstone of the UK’s employment law system, they have changed beyond recognition over the last 60 years and the current systems are in need of an upgrade.

The Employment Tribunal is the final destination for whistleblowing cases – often a tortuous process that pits an individual whistleblower against the might of their employer’s legal team. Recent reports have shown that the UK employment tribunal backlog has hit record levels, with some warning the number is likely to rise further. Plus last year fees for Employment Tribunals were put back in the frame. So what does all this mean for whistleblowers?

Tribunal Backlog

According to recent analysis by the law firm Littler the backlog of open UK employment tribunal cases has risen by over a quarter (23 per cent) in just 12 months. The employment law firm looked at the latest HM Courts & Tribunals Service statistics and found the number of open cases reached 49,800 in December 2024, increasing from 39,000 the previous year. The analysis found there are currently approximately 450,000 people across single and multiple claims waiting for their cases to be resolved.

Under the government’s flagship worker rights’ legislation, currently going through parliament, employees will be entitled to “day one” protections against unfair dismissal and will have up  to six months to bring a claim to an employment tribunal, an increase from the three months at present. This extension is certainly welcomed as will give more flexibility for would-be whistleblowers to make their claim.  Missing from the extension of time limits is interim relief (IR) which is a reinstatement order that a whistleblower can request from the tribunal which means they either get their job back or, if this isn’t possible, they are paid their full wage for the length of the tribunal case.  The problem exists that IR can only be applied for 7 days after the whistleblower has been dismissed, which is an incredible short period of time.  We’d like to see this extended in line with general tribunal claims to 14 days.

The current long delays to Tribunals have significant implications for whistleblowers who are left in limbo while waiting for their case to be heard. While going to the Tribunal is often the result when the internal processes haven’t gone well, the drawn-out process is hugely stressful for claimants and the judge doesn’t have the remit to investigate the problems the whistleblower raised (often to the frustration of whistleblowers who are looking for “their day in court” to right the wrongs they had witnessed).

Slim chance of success

It’s well reported that only 3% of whistleblowing claims are “successful at hearing” but this doesn’t really tell the whole story. Analysis has shown that a third of all cases are settled through ACAS and a high percentage of claims settled through some means (including claims being withdrawn because of settlement with the employer). The 3% figure suggests this is all whistleblowing cases, but in reality the majority never get to the Tribunal as they are either settled or dropped along the way. But for anyone going through the Tribunal process seeking justice at this level is an incredibly stressful and intimidating experience.  Whistleblowers who settle their case may feel they cannot continue to raise the public interest concern at the heart of the case (e.g. the fraud, sexual harrassment etc.) due to confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements within the settlement agreement.  The law states that any clause in a contract is void if it aims to prevent an individual from raising their whistleblowing concerns (this can include disclosures to a regulator, MP or the press). Yet awareness of this is very low, YouGov and our own research has found less than half (48%) of adults were aware of a law that protects whistleblowers.  We would like to see every settlement include text that specifies the right to make public interest disclosure. Plus, independent legal advice- paid by the employer- to outline the limits of their confidentiality agreement and their ability to blow the whistle in the future.

Free or Fees – the impact on access to justice:

Tribunal fees were abolished in 2017 scrapping the £390 to £1,600 charge to lodge a claim. In January 2024 the Sunak Conservative government launched a consultation on bringing the fees back with a £55 issue fee that would be payable by the claimant on bringing a claim to the ET. The Law Society president Nick Emmerson said it could price out access for justice for those who need it most but with the change in government it seems that the proposals have been shelved for now.

The future of Employment Tribunals and whistleblowing claims

As Employment Tribunals mark this important milestone, it is crucial to modernize the system – making it more efficient, transparent, and user-friendly. For whistleblowing cases – the Tribunal is an indication of when things have gone wrong and the relations between employer and employee have irrevocably broken down. Effort and focus are best spent improving the law to provide real support and strong protections for those who speak up, before, during, and after they blow the whistle.

https://protect-advice.org.uk/legal-reform-campaign/

 

[1] Royal commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations 1965-1968: Report, Cmnd 3623; (1968), para 578

All Blog Posts

Lords support for whistleblowing amendments

view of houses of parliament across the river thames

The Employment Rights Bill is continuing its journey through the House of Lords and our proposals to update the whistleblowing framework have formed a key part of the conversation. 

May has seen the bill reach Committee Stage in the House of Lords, giving all members of the Lords an opportunity to speak and debate amendments. We’ve worked with a wide range of peers from across all parties to amass support for our proposals to modernise whistleblowing protection. 

Former Minister Lord Wills put his name to three amendments. The first is to introduce a Duty to Investigate whistleblowing concerns, creating a requirement on employers to take “reasonable steps” to investigate whistleblowing concerns that are brought to them. As the debate continued late into the evening, Baroness Kramer presented Lord Wills’ amendments to the House: 

The second of the amendments is the Extension of Whistleblower Protections, which expands whistleblowing protections to the self-employed, job applicants, trade union negotiators and all those in the workforce who currently do not fit under the current narrow definition of “worker”. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb outlined how this amendment would reduce potential harm to the public.

And the third amendment lowers the bar for automatic unfair dismissal from the current position of whistleblowing being the main or the principal reason for dismissal, to “one of the reasons”, alongside extending the time limits to Interim Relief for whistleblowing from 3 months to 6 months. Crossbench peer Lord Cromwell pledged his support for all three amendments.

These amendments have received support from across the House of Lords with the former Liberal Democrat Minister Baroness Kramer, Green Peer Jenny Jones, former Conservative Cabinet Minister Nicky Morgan and crossbench Peer Lord Cromwell all speaking in support of them.  

Previously the government ministers pushed back against adopting the amendments. However, they have also given us hope by not categorically ruling out adopting the measures over time. We’re looking to take the momentum we’ve gained from proposing these amendments, building upon the growth of support in the Commons, and will ask peers to table further amendments on these issues. 

In the Commons, Minister Justin Madders said that he had “begun to consider” adopting these amendments. As such, we hope that in Report Stage the government will accept these proposals and finally update our broken and outdated whistleblowing framework. 

However, with so many amendments to scrutinise the House of Lords is likely to take longer than planned to dissect the Bill which could delay it passing into law by anything from a day to a few weeks. While the government want it passed before Parliament’s summer recess, which begins on 22 July, the debates may continue into the autumn. 

All Blog Posts

Attitudes to Whistleblowing

attitudes to whistleblowing - from Gen Z to Baby Boomers

The makeup of the workforce is changing.

Every workforce is made up of workers from different generations: their attitudes and experiences will be different.

Does Gen Z view whistleblowing differently to Millennials, Generation X or Baby Boomers? Has the attitude of the Baby Boomer generation changed from when they started in the workplace? The lived experience of the different generations should shape the way whistleblowing arrangements are created and communicated to staff.

To celebrate World Whistleblowers’ Day 2025, we are proud to invite you to a Protect event – in partnership with and kindly hosted by Lloyds Banking Group – to launch new research examining these issues and to provide a path to best practice.

Speaking at the event will be; Daniil Belogubov, Internal Audit Apprentice at Lloyds Banking Group, Tina Russell, Professional Conduct & Ethics Lead, Rebecca Linford, Legal Officer at Protect, and Peter Humphreys, Global Business Executive.

  • Date: Tuesday 24th June 2025
  • Online event: Microsoft Teams
  • Time: 10:00-11:30am

Please use this link to register for virtual attendance:

Register here

All Blog Posts