The UK government has launched a major consultation on reforming whistleblowing laws, including proposals that could make whistleblowing policies and reporting procedures mandatory for employers with 50 or more employees.
Published on 12 October 2026, the consultation also considers expanding legal protections for whistleblowers, making it easier to report wrongdoing to regulators and introducing financial rewards for people who expose serious economic crime.
The government has signalled support for some of these reforms, while others remain open for consultation. The consultation closes on 8 January 2027, with a formal government response expected later in 2027.
Why is the government reviewing whistleblowing laws?
The UK’s whistleblowing framework was established by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996. It protects workers who report certain types of wrongdoing in the public interest from dismissal and other detrimental treatment.
These protections cover disclosures about criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations, health and safety risks, environmental damage and other specified wrongdoing. Since April 2026, sexual harassment has also been expressly included as a category of wrongdoing that can qualify for whistleblowing protection.
However, the government believes the framework may no longer provide sufficient protection. It points to developments in other countries, including the EU Whistleblowing Directive, as well as concerns about whether workers feel confident reporting misconduct and whether employers respond appropriately.
Could whistleblowing policies become mandatory for employers?
One of the most significant proposals is to introduce a statutory requirement for employers to maintain whistleblowing policies and procedures. Currently, most employers are not legally required to have a whistleblowing policy or a formal system for handling disclosures, although certain regulated businesses, particularly in financial services, already have specific obligations. The government is considering two approaches.
Option 1: Stronger government guidance
The first option would involve publishing more detailed guidance on how employers should handle whistleblowing disclosures. This could cover confidentiality, communicating with whistleblowers, investigating concerns and providing appropriate feedback. Employers would retain flexibility over their arrangements, and the guidance would not create new legal duties.
Option 2: A new statutory duty on employers
The second option would introduce a legal requirement for employers to establish appropriate and effective whistleblowing procedures, maintain a policy explaining those procedures and follow up on disclosures. The government is considering two possible models.
The first is based on Ireland’s implementation of the EU Whistleblowing Directive, which includes requirements for secure reporting channels, acknowledgement of disclosures within seven days, impartial handling and feedback within three months.
The second is based on existing Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules. These are less prescriptive and focus on ensuring that disclosures are properly assessed, with feedback provided where appropriate.
The government has not decided which model it prefers, or whether to introduce a statutory duty at all. Importantly, it has clarified that a duty to follow up would not require employers to formally investigate every report. Employers would instead be expected to take reasonable and proportionate steps to assess disclosures and determine what action is appropriate.
Which employers could be covered?
If the statutory duty is introduced, the government is considering applying it to:
- Private-sector employers, including charities and not-for-profit organisations, with 50 or more employees.
- All public-sector employers, regardless of size.
- Organisations not already subject to equivalent sector-specific whistleblowing requirements.
The government is also considering a phased introduction, potentially starting with employers with 250 or more employees before extending the rules to those with 50 to 249 employees.
Employers that fail to comply could face civil penalties, including financial penalties. The government is consulting on whether enforcement should be handled by a designated public body rather than relying solely on individual Employment Tribunal claims.
These proposals would represent a significant change for employers outside regulated sectors, particularly medium-sized businesses that have not previously been required to maintain formal whistleblowing arrangements.
Could more people receive whistleblowing protection?
The government is considering extending legal protection to people who currently fall outside the whistleblowing framework. Existing protection covers employees and workers, along with certain additional groups, including agency workers, trainees and some self-employed NHS practitioners.
The consultation asks whether protection should also be extended to charity trustees, non-executive directors, volunteers, job applicants and certain self-employed individuals.
The government has indicated that some self-employed people may have a stronger case for protection, particularly where they are vulnerable to retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.
However, it is less convinced that volunteers should automatically be included. Any expansion could affect how organisations handle reports from contractors and other individuals working alongside their employees.
Would it become easier to report wrongdoing externally?
Under the current framework, workers can make protected disclosures directly to their employer or, subject to additional conditions, to certain regulators and other designated bodies known as prescribed persons.
When reporting to a prescribed person, workers must reasonably believe that the information disclosed is substantially true and falls within that body’s remit.
The government is considering removing the additional substantial-truth requirement, potentially making it easier for workers to obtain legal protection when reporting directly to regulators.
It is also consulting on whether trade unions should become an expressly recognised reporting route, subject to the lower threshold that generally applies to disclosures made internally.
These proposals could increase external reporting and reduce the legal uncertainty facing workers who are reluctant to raise concerns with their employer. However, the government also acknowledges concerns about potentially unfounded allegations, increased regulatory workloads and the consequences for employers. No preferred approach has been announced.
Could whistleblowers receive stronger protection after dismissal?
Currently, an employee who claims to have been dismissed for whistleblowing has just seven days to apply for interim relief from an Employment Tribunal. If granted, interim relief can require an employer to reinstate the employee, re-engage them or continue paying their wages while the unfair dismissal claim is determined.
The government is considering extending the application deadline from seven to 14 days. This could make interim relief more accessible to dismissed whistleblowers, although the government recognises that an extension could increase legal costs for employers and place additional demands on Employment Tribunals.
Financial rewards for reporting fraud, bribery and corruption
Another major proposal concerns financial incentives for whistleblowers who report serious economic crime to the Serious Fraud Office. Unlike several other reforms in the consultation, the government has expressly stated that it supports introducing an SFO whistleblower reward scheme.
Under the proposed system, individuals who provide significant and original information leading to successful corporate enforcement action, such as a criminal conviction or Deferred Prosecution Agreement, could receive a financial reward.
The reward would be funded from a proportion of the financial penalty imposed on the offending company. The government is considering a percentage-based reward scheme, similar to arrangements operating in the United States. International schemes commonly offer rewards of between 10% and 30% of recovered penalties, although no percentage range has yet been selected for the proposed UK scheme.
The consultation is also considering whether:
- Rewards should have a maximum monetary cap.
- Individuals outside the UK should be eligible.
- People involved in the wrongdoing should be eligible for payments.
- An independent panel should review disputes about rewards.
- New criminal offences should be introduced for knowingly submitting false information or intimidating whistleblowers.
The proposed scheme would operate separately from employment law whistleblowing protections. Individuals would not necessarily need to be employees or workers to qualify for a reward.
For businesses, this could create a stronger financial incentive for individuals to report suspected misconduct directly to enforcement authorities. It may also increase the importance of maintaining effective internal reporting systems and responding promptly to concerns about fraud, bribery and financial crime.
Will there be a new whistleblowing regulator?
Some stakeholders have proposed establishing an independent Office of the Whistleblower to oversee reporting arrangements, monitor employer compliance and potentially take enforcement action.
However, the government has indicated that it does not believe a new whistleblowing authority is necessary. It is also opposed, at this stage, to expanding an existing body’s responsibilities for this purpose. Instead, it is considering an AI-assisted tool that would help workers identify the appropriate regulator or other prescribed person to receive their disclosure. Such a tool could simplify reporting without creating a new regulatory organisation.
What does the government appear likely to do?
The consultation provides some indications of the government’s preferred direction, although many important decisions remain outstanding. The clearest commitment concerns financial rewards for economic crime whistleblowers. The government supports introducing an SFO scheme and is now considering its detailed operation.
It is also clear that the government intends to retain the public interest test and currently opposes establishing a new central whistleblowing authority. The position on mandatory whistleblowing policies is less settled.
However, the consultation gives considerable attention to how a statutory duty could operate, which employers it should cover, how it could be enforced and whether implementation should be phased.
This suggests that mandatory whistleblowing policies and procedures are a serious possibility. If introduced, they could create substantial new compliance responsibilities for employers with 50 or more employees. Other reforms, including expanded whistleblower protection, changes to external reporting requirements and the extension of interim relief deadlines, remain open for consultation.
How VinciWorks can help
VinciWorks provides whistleblowing training and reporting solutions to help organisations build effective speak-up cultures and manage reports of wrongdoing.
Our training helps employees understand their rights, recognise potential misconduct and raise concerns appropriately. We also provide training for managers on creating a workplace where employees feel confident speaking up.
As the government considers new requirements for whistleblowing policies and procedures, organisations can take practical steps now to strengthen their reporting arrangements and reduce compliance risks.
