A new era for whistleblowing? The Government consults on whistleblowing reform

Find a lawyer Our capabilities Your career FRAUD WARNING

Oct 14 2026

The UK Government has published a consultation on the current whistleblowing framework, seeking views on its operational effectiveness and possible options for reform. The consultation raises the prospect of further potentially significant changes to the employment law landscape, following significant reforms being introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025).

The consultation also seeks views on a proposed Serious Fraud Office initiative to incentivise whistleblowers financially. This blog does not discuss the incentivisation aspects of the consultation in detail: these will be considered in a separate blog.

The current whistleblowing regime

As a reminder, to be protected under UK employment law, an employee or worker:

must have a reasonable belief that the information they have disclosed tends to show that specific wrongdoing has taken place, is taking place, or is likely to take place. Categories of possible wrongdoing include commission of a criminal offence, non-compliance with a legal obligation, and sexual harassment;
must believe that their disclosure is “in the public interest”; and
must make their disclosure through an appropriate channel. This is most commonly their employer, but individuals can report straight to a “prescribed person” (e.g. a regulator) in which case they must reasonably believe that (i) the information they are disclosing is “substantially true”, and (ii) the matter falls within the prescribed person’s remit.

An employee or worker who is protected and who is dismissed or otherwise suffers a detriment for whistleblowing is entitled to unlimited compensation for any loss suffered.

Potential reforms

The consultation paper explores possible reform of several different elements of the current whistleblowing regime. Except for the proposals on financial incentivisation, the consultation paper does not at this stage make any firm recommendations.

Any expansion of the scope of whistleblowing protections risks imposing additional burdens on employers (although in practice, a number of the areas raised in the consultation are likely to be of more limited concern to financial services firms subject to SYSC 18, given the already extensive scope and application of SYSC 18’s requirements).

The key focuses of the consultation paper are as follows:

Protected individuals – the Government notes that some stakeholders consider the current regime (which most obviously protects both employees and workers) to be too narrowly drawn, and that protections should be expanded to additional groups such as charity trustees, volunteers and certain self-employed individuals.
The consultation notes a number of factors which the Government considers should be relevant to how far whistleblowing protections extend, notably: (i) the likelihood that the person will encounter wrongdoing; (ii) the importance of them making disclosures of wrongdoing in the public interest; (iii) the vulnerability of the person to retaliation, including risks to livelihood or reputation; and (iv) whether the person has alternative reporting routes or protections available. The Government’s initial view is that some groups (e.g. volunteers) would not meet these criteria, but others (e.g. some self-employed individuals) might, and it is seeking views on the approach.
Whilst employers may not be unduly concerned by an extension of the legislation to cover certain of the categories of individual referred to in the consultation paper, they may consider that the paper’s undefined reference to “certain self-employed” individuals is an area to watch.
“Public interest” test” – the “public interest” element was introduced by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and was intended to ensure that the whistleblowing regime was not used to dispute purely personal matters – the principle being that the relevant issue should engage interests/stakeholders beyond just the individual purportedly blowing the whistle. The Government is seeking views on whether the test is operating effectively in practice and whether changes to government guidance would be helpful. The consultation paper notes the view offered by some stakeholders that disputes about whether the “public interest” test is met are relatively uncommon in tribunal cases. This is true, but the reason for this is because tribunals have taken a broad view of what constitutes the “public interest”. As a result, the need to show “public interest” has generally become a (very) low hurdle for claimants to clear. Given the significant cost implications for employers of fighting whistleblowing claims, we expect that many would welcome a more rigorous approach to the “public interest” test. It is probably optimistic to think the Government will share this view, and we would therefore expect the test to remain unchanged and to continue to be interpreted in a broadly helpful way for claimants.
Wrongdoing – the Government is also seeking views as to whether the existing categories of “wrongdoing” are sufficient, or whether additional categories should be included. Specific possible expansions mentioned in the consultation paper include (i) risks arising from the use of AI, and (ii) misuse of public funds / abuse of authority. An expansion was already introduced earlier this year by the ERA 2025, to cover sexual harassment. This was widely viewed as being unnecessary from a legal perspective, as sexual harassment would already have been covered by the existing categories of “wrongdoing”. The position would arguably be the same for the additional areas described above although (as with sexual harassment) their proposed inclusion may be motivated by a desire to raise the prominence of these topics and demonstrate the seriousness which the Government considers should be attached to them. Our view is that a further extension is at best unnecessary and at worst confusing, and that a short list of flexible categories would be preferable to an overlapping and increasingly complicated list.
Reporting channels – the Government is consulting on a variety of possible reforms of this area. The consultation paper reports that some workers are reluctant to use internal channels to report to their employer (particularly given confidentiality concerns) but also notes that employers are often best placed to address issues internally. The Government raises a question in the consultation as to whether additional reporting routes are needed to ensure that workers have clear, effective and accessible ways to raise concerns at an early stage, instead of having to go directly to their employer. The consultation paper gives a trade union official as a possible example. Most employers will be opposed to any such suggestion, preferring that concerns are raised internally so that they can be addressed as promptly and effectively as possible and without outside intervention. Alternative routes may already be used in appropriate circumstances under the existing legislation (and financial services firms are required, for example, to inform employees of their ability to blow the whistle directly to the FCA). In light of this, we do not consider there is a need for a further broadening of reporting channels.
A further possible option for reform is removal of the “substantially true” hurdle (as mentioned above) when reporting to “prescribed persons”. Again, many employers are likely to be strongly resistant to any such suggestion. As the consultation notes, the removal of this requirement could make it easier for workers to bypass their employer and obtain whistleblowing protection even for ill-founded allegations.
Policies – whilst there is Government guidance which encourages employers to put in place policies to handle whistleblowing, outside of the financial services sector there is no legal requirement to do so. The consultation outlines two key options for reform: (i) revised, enhanced non-statutory guidance around whistleblowing procedures; or (ii) a statutory duty on employers to have appropriate and effective whistleblowing procedures.
The second option would potentially result in an approach similar to that adopted in EU member states (which are required to have transposed the EU Whistleblowing Directive), and/or the regime to which FCA-regulated firms are already subject under SYSC 18.
Given most if not all large non-FCA regulated firms will already have whistleblowing policies in place, non-statutory guidance is unlikely to be unduly burdensome and will almost certainly be preferable to a SYSC 18-style mandatory regime.
Interim relief – employees who claim they were dismissed for whistleblowing can apply for interim relief within seven days. If granted, a tribunal can order reinstatement, re-engagement, or continued pay until the case is decided at a final hearing. The Government is consulting on whether the current seven-day deadline is too short for workers. An interim order can impose a significant burden on an employer (e.g. continuation of pay through to a final hearing which could be several years away) although there are relatively high bars that need to be established before a claim for an interim order can succeed and tribunal data suggests that very few applications do so. A further employer concern is the significant recent increase in interim relief claims, many of which appear to be AI-generated. Defending these applications (even if they are ultimately successful) results in employers incurring significant costs. For these reasons, employers are likely to be resistant to any extension to the seven-day deadline.
Office of the Whistleblower – whilst the Government has indicated that it does not consider this reform to be necessary, it is consulting on the establishment of a central “Office of the Whistleblower” which would triage disclosures and direct them to the appropriate “prescribed person”. Alternatively, the Government has asked for views on an alternative of implementing an AI tool to support workers in identifying the appropriate “prescribed person”.
The notion of an Office of the Whistleblower has been discussed for a number of years (with a Parliamentary Private Member’s Bill on the topic having its first reading in December 2024) but has failed to generate much traction to date.
We see little benefit in such a proposal, which would create an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy.

Next steps

The consultation comes at a pivotal time for UK employment law, given the changes being introduced by the ERA 2025 throughout 2026 and early 2027. Pursuant to the ERA 2025, from 1 January 2027, ordinary unfair dismissal claims are no longer subject to a cap on compensation and are only subject to a six-month qualifying period (reduced from the existing two years).

Currently, some workers appear to use whistleblowing claims as a way around the capped compensation applicable to unfair dismissal and/or the requirement for a qualifying period of service. One might have therefore expected the number of whistleblowing claims to reduce in 2027 and beyond, given the prospect of uncapped compensation under an “ordinary” unfair dismissal claim and the reduced qualifying period of service. However, the outcome of the consultation and subsequent policy decisions by the Government may encourage a continued interest in such claims, especially if it becomes easier to apply for interim relief, which is not available for “ordinary” unfair dismissal. Equally, where employment continues and there is no dismissal in relation to which a claim can be brought, whistleblowing can remain an important route to a remedy for employees who claim to have suffered detriment. Whistleblowing claims carry not only potential financial but also significant reputational (and sometimes regulatory) consequences for employers, and the threat of such claims can be used as leverage by employees in situations such as exit negotiations. Any broadening of the scope of protection will therefore be significant and of interest for both employees and employers, albeit for different reasons.

The consultation is open until Friday 8 January 2027, with a Government response expected later in 2027.

Do please let us know (either by contacting one of the authors of this piece or getting in touch with your usual Freshfields contact) if you would like to discuss the consultation paper and what it might mean for your business in more detail.

Authors

London

Holly Insley

Partner

Co-Authors

London

Charles Smye

Senior Associate

Latest Insights

Find a lawyer Our capabilities Your career FRAUD WARNING

Oct 14 2026

The current whistleblowing regime

As a reminder, to be protected under UK employment law, an employee or worker:

must have a reasonable belief that the information they have disclosed tends to show that specific wrongdoing has taken place, is taking place, or is likely to take place. Categories of possible wrongdoing include commission of a criminal offence, non-compliance with a legal obligation, and sexual harassment;
must believe that their disclosure is “in the public interest”; and
must make their disclosure through an appropriate channel. This is most commonly their employer, but individuals can report straight to a “prescribed person” (e.g. a regulator) in which case they must reasonably believe that (i) the information they are disclosing is “substantially true”, and (ii) the matter falls within the prescribed person’s remit.

An employee or worker who is protected and who is dismissed or otherwise suffers a detriment for whistleblowing is entitled to unlimited compensation for any loss suffered.

Potential reforms

The key focuses of the consultation paper are as follows:

Protected individuals – the Government notes that some stakeholders consider the current regime (which most obviously protects both employees and workers) to be too narrowly drawn, and that protections should be expanded to additional groups such as charity trustees, volunteers and certain self-employed individuals.
The consultation notes a number of factors which the Government considers should be relevant to how far whistleblowing protections extend, notably: (i) the likelihood that the person will encounter wrongdoing; (ii) the importance of them making disclosures of wrongdoing in the public interest; (iii) the vulnerability of the person to retaliation, including risks to livelihood or reputation; and (iv) whether the person has alternative reporting routes or protections available. The Government’s initial view is that some groups (e.g. volunteers) would not meet these criteria, but others (e.g. some self-employed individuals) might, and it is seeking views on the approach.
Whilst employers may not be unduly concerned by an extension of the legislation to cover certain of the categories of individual referred to in the consultation paper, they may consider that the paper’s undefined reference to “certain self-employed” individuals is an area to watch.
“Public interest” test” – the “public interest” element was introduced by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and was intended to ensure that the whistleblowing regime was not used to dispute purely personal matters – the principle being that the relevant issue should engage interests/stakeholders beyond just the individual purportedly blowing the whistle. The Government is seeking views on whether the test is operating effectively in practice and whether changes to government guidance would be helpful. The consultation paper notes the view offered by some stakeholders that disputes about whether the “public interest” test is met are relatively uncommon in tribunal cases. This is true, but the reason for this is because tribunals have taken a broad view of what constitutes the “public interest”. As a result, the need to show “public interest” has generally become a (very) low hurdle for claimants to clear. Given the significant cost implications for employers of fighting whistleblowing claims, we expect that many would welcome a more rigorous approach to the “public interest” test. It is probably optimistic to think the Government will share this view, and we would therefore expect the test to remain unchanged and to continue to be interpreted in a broadly helpful way for claimants.
Wrongdoing – the Government is also seeking views as to whether the existing categories of “wrongdoing” are sufficient, or whether additional categories should be included. Specific possible expansions mentioned in the consultation paper include (i) risks arising from the use of AI, and (ii) misuse of public funds / abuse of authority. An expansion was already introduced earlier this year by the ERA 2025, to cover sexual harassment. This was widely viewed as being unnecessary from a legal perspective, as sexual harassment would already have been covered by the existing categories of “wrongdoing”. The position would arguably be the same for the additional areas described above although (as with sexual harassment) their proposed inclusion may be motivated by a desire to raise the prominence of these topics and demonstrate the seriousness which the Government considers should be attached to them. Our view is that a further extension is at best unnecessary and at worst confusing, and that a short list of flexible categories would be preferable to an overlapping and increasingly complicated list.
Reporting channels – the Government is consulting on a variety of possible reforms of this area. The consultation paper reports that some workers are reluctant to use internal channels to report to their employer (particularly given confidentiality concerns) but also notes that employers are often best placed to address issues internally. The Government raises a question in the consultation as to whether additional reporting routes are needed to ensure that workers have clear, effective and accessible ways to raise concerns at an early stage, instead of having to go directly to their employer. The consultation paper gives a trade union official as a possible example. Most employers will be opposed to any such suggestion, preferring that concerns are raised internally so that they can be addressed as promptly and effectively as possible and without outside intervention. Alternative routes may already be used in appropriate circumstances under the existing legislation (and financial services firms are required, for example, to inform employees of their ability to blow the whistle directly to the FCA). In light of this, we do not consider there is a need for a further broadening of reporting channels.
A further possible option for reform is removal of the “substantially true” hurdle (as mentioned above) when reporting to “prescribed persons”. Again, many employers are likely to be strongly resistant to any such suggestion. As the consultation notes, the removal of this requirement could make it easier for workers to bypass their employer and obtain whistleblowing protection even for ill-founded allegations.
Policies – whilst there is Government guidance which encourages employers to put in place policies to handle whistleblowing, outside of the financial services sector there is no legal requirement to do so. The consultation outlines two key options for reform: (i) revised, enhanced non-statutory guidance around whistleblowing procedures; or (ii) a statutory duty on employers to have appropriate and effective whistleblowing procedures.
The second option would potentially result in an approach similar to that adopted in EU member states (which are required to have transposed the EU Whistleblowing Directive), and/or the regime to which FCA-regulated firms are already subject under SYSC 18.
Given most if not all large non-FCA regulated firms will already have whistleblowing policies in place, non-statutory guidance is unlikely to be unduly burdensome and will almost certainly be preferable to a SYSC 18-style mandatory regime.
Interim relief – employees who claim they were dismissed for whistleblowing can apply for interim relief within seven days. If granted, a tribunal can order reinstatement, re-engagement, or continued pay until the case is decided at a final hearing. The Government is consulting on whether the current seven-day deadline is too short for workers. An interim order can impose a significant burden on an employer (e.g. continuation of pay through to a final hearing which could be several years away) although there are relatively high bars that need to be established before a claim for an interim order can succeed and tribunal data suggests that very few applications do so. A further employer concern is the significant recent increase in interim relief claims, many of which appear to be AI-generated. Defending these applications (even if they are ultimately successful) results in employers incurring significant costs. For these reasons, employers are likely to be resistant to any extension to the seven-day deadline.
Office of the Whistleblower – whilst the Government has indicated that it does not consider this reform to be necessary, it is consulting on the establishment of a central “Office of the Whistleblower” which would triage disclosures and direct them to the appropriate “prescribed person”. Alternatively, the Government has asked for views on an alternative of implementing an AI tool to support workers in identifying the appropriate “prescribed person”.
The notion of an Office of the Whistleblower has been discussed for a number of years (with a Parliamentary Private Member’s Bill on the topic having its first reading in December 2024) but has failed to generate much traction to date.
We see little benefit in such a proposal, which would create an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy.

Next steps

The consultation is open until Friday 8 January 2027, with a Government response expected later in 2027.

Authors

London

Holly Insley

Partner

Co-Authors

London

Charles Smye

Senior Associate