On 12 October 2026, the government launched a consultation on reforming the current legal framework for whistleblowing protection, and potentially introducing a separate scheme to reward economic crime whistleblowers.
How does whistleblower protection currently work?
The Employment Rights Act 1996 protects workers and certain wider groups (including agency workers, student nurses, self-employed NHS practitioners, and LLP members) from detriment or dismissal for making protected disclosures.
To qualify for protection, a worker must reasonably believe that their disclosure is in the public interest and tends to show one of the following types of wrongdoing:
- A criminal offence
- Failure to comply with a legal obligation
- Miscarriage of justice
- Danger to health and safety
- Environmental damage
- Sexual harassment
- Covering up any of the above
An individual may make a disclosure to their employer, a relevant regulator, or another 'prescribed person'. Additional conditions apply for the individual to qualify for protection for those wider disclosures.
Defining protected individuals
The consultation asks whether the scope of protection is sufficient or should extend to additional categories, such as trustees, non-executive directors, volunteers, job applicants outside the NHS, and certain self-employed individuals.
Factors highlighted as relevant when considering whether to extend protection include a person's likelihood of encountering wrongdoing, the importance of them making disclosures in the public interest, their vulnerability to retaliation and available alternative protections. The government's initial view is that volunteers may not meet these criteria, whereas some self-employed individuals may do so.
Public interest test
Requiring whistleblowers to have a reasonable belief that they are acting in the public interest guards against purely personal grievances being pursued as whistleblowing claims. The government does not propose to remove this test, but seeks views on its effectiveness and whether to produce guidance explaining relevant case law and factors more fully, and including practical examples.
Relevant types of wrongdoing
The consultation seeks views on expanding the existing categories of wrongdoing or clarifying their scope through guidance. The government is particularly concerned about whether the existing categories adequately capture corruption-related issues, including misuse of public funds and abuse of authority, and emerging AI-related risks.
Disclosure routes
Currently, an individual making a disclosure to a prescribed person without first having disclosed the information to their employer must satisfy the additional condition that they reasonably believe the information is substantially true. The consultation asks whether this additional requirement should be removed because it deters disclosures to prescribed persons and unnecessarily complicates the framework.
The consultation also asks whether further reporting channels are needed, for example, allowing disclosures to trade unions, subject to the same criteria as disclosures to an individual's employer.
Policies and procedures
Most employers have no specific statutory duty to maintain whistleblowing reporting arrangements, although government guidance encourages this.
The consultation notes that inadequate whistleblowing policies and procedures may undermine workers' confidence in the process and discourage disclosures. It therefore seeks views on whether to produce more detailed non-statutory guidance to help employers handle whistleblowing disclosures, or introduce a statutory duty on employers to:
- Implement appropriate procedures for handling whistleblowing disclosures and a policy explaining them to workers
- Follow up on disclosures
A statutory duty could be modelled on Ireland's Protected Disclosures Act 2014, with detailed requirements on confidentiality, acknowledgement and feedback, or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)'s less prescriptive rules that apply to employers in the financial services sector.
The consultation emphasises that a statutory duty to follow up would not require employers to undertake a formal investigation of every disclosure, but a reasonable assessment of its merit and decision on any appropriate action.
A statutory duty could cover all public sector employers and private sector employers with 50 or more employees, with exemptions for employers that are already subject to equivalent arrangements such as the FCA rules.
The consultation suggests civil penalties for breach, and asks whether enforcement by a government body would be preferable to individual employment tribunal claims.
Interim relief
An employee claiming automatically unfair dismissal for whistleblowing may apply for interim relief. If successful, the tribunal may order reinstatement or re-engagement, or make a “continuation of contract order”, keeping the employee suspended on full pay until the full hearing of their claim.
The consultation asks whether to extend the deadline for seeking interim relief from seven to 14 days following dismissal in order to improve access and strengthen workers' confidence that they will be protected if they raise concerns. It acknowledges that this could further increase tribunal caseloads. As we reported here, presidential guidance on interim relief published in July 2026 highlights a significant increase in interim relief applications, often accompanied by extensive AI-generated documentation. The guidance emphasises that there is a high bar for granting interim relief - something that the consultation confirms would remain in place if the application deadline is extended.
Navigating the framework
The consultation notes that workers may find it difficult to identify the appropriate prescribed person to whom they should make a protected disclosure, and suggests an AI assisted tool could help with this.
It also seeks views on establishing a central whistleblowing body, potentially with standard-setting and enforcement functions. However, the government's initial position is against creating such a body or allocating such functions to an existing enforcement body.
Financial rewards for corporate whistleblowers
Separately from potential whistleblowing law reform, the government indicates its support for establishing a scheme under which the Serious Fraud Office would reward whistleblowers who disclose significant, original information that leads to successful corporate enforcement, including convictions or deferred prosecution agreements. This could be modelled on similar US and Canadian schemes.
The government proposes that eligibility under the scheme would not depend on worker status or making a protected disclosure. Relevant criteria would include whether the individual had a legal duty to report, was culpable in the relevant offending, or obtained the information dishonestly.
Rewards would be funded from corporate fines or penalties, with a percentage range and potentially uncapped awards under consideration. Where multiple individuals provide information that jointly contributes to successful enforcement, they could share the total reward.
Proposed safeguards include offences covering knowingly making false reports and harassment or intimidation of participants in the scheme.
All details remain subject to consultation, and the government has indicated that it will work with a representative stakeholder group to further refine the proposals.
What does this mean for employers?
Some of the proposed reforms are far-reaching. A statutory duty to implement appropriate whistleblowing policies and procedures would require significant effort from organisations that do not already have these in place. Those employers with existing arrangements would still need to assess their policies and procedures for compliance with the new requirements. That said, the consultation runs until 8 January 2027, and substantive legislative proposals are likely still some way off. It is also notable that the consultation suggests a possible phased implementation, initially covering employers with 250+ employees, before the regime is extended to employers with 50 to 249 employees a year later.
