FYI
René SLOOTJES
Head of Unit
European Commission
DG HR – Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission
Unit HR.IDOC.1
MO34 4/103
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 2956559
[Emailadresse]
IDOC on the intranet: http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/idoc/Pages/index.aspx
From:
WILLIAMS Karen (HR)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:47 PM
To: SLOOTJES Rene (HR)
Subject: FW: whistleblowing in whitehall
From:
paul stephenson [mailto:[Emailadresse]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:31 AM
To: WILLIAMS Karen (HR)
Cc: Francesca West
Subject: whistleblowing in whitehall
Dear Ms Williams
It was good to meet you yesterday. Thanks for sparing us your time.
As promised here's an example of a good UK government departmental policy - from DCMS. I took it off their website today so it must be current. When PCAW reviewed all Whitehall policies in 2007 DCMS were rated top. The policy was not however without flaws and, like others, it struggled with external disclosures. This point was made in the PCAW review 'Whistleblowing in Whitehall,' which is on our website:
Staff need to be aware of when and how they may properly raise concerns outside the
Department - for example with an external auditor, a regulatory body or a law enforcement
agency. Not only is this an obligation on officials, where there is evidence of a criminal or
unlawful act, under paragraph 17 of the Civil Service Code, but it is a key aspect of the
statutory scheme in PIDA. This is the main area where Departments seem to have real
difficulty, caused largely, we assume, by the inaccurate advice given in the Directory of
Civil Service Guidance. This Guidance sets out a purely internal procedure, with the
possibility of reporting to the Civil Service Commissioners if the whistleblower is unhappy
with the response, and then states that ‘these procedures should also be followed if you
wish to make any other disclosure covered by the 1998 Act’. This advice conflicts with
PIDA’s approach and has the unintended effect of triggering the protection for media
disclosures (because it will give officials reasonable cause to believe they will be victimised
for going to a prescribed regulator). Not surprisingly, some Departments have been misled
by this central advice and their policies are seriously defective as a result (e.g. FCO,
DCMS, SE, DCA, Cabinet Office).
This point has now been addressed in para 7 of the current DCMS policy but not in a very clear or informative way.
Yours
Paul Stephenson