Dominic Mehta – Expolink’s new Commercial Director

We are delighted to announce that Dominic Mehta has joined Expolink Europe as our new Commercial Director.

Dominic brings with him a wealth of experience in the contact centre market and will significantly strengthen the management team having worked for companies such as Lloyds TSB and Barclays, as well as having owned and run his own business.  He will be responsible for driving the strategic plans of the company both in terms of growth and operational excellence.

Commenting on his appointment, Dominic said, “I am delighted to join Expolink Europe at such an exciting time for it and also for our industry.  Expolink is an outstanding global brand with an enviable reputation in the provision of whistleblowing hotlines, contact centre solutions and incident and security management software solutions.

Expolink has achieved great things so far and I aim to help take it onto the next level.”

Contact us today to find out how our market-leading global whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your employees and business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

Read more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles and interviews here.

The post Expolink appoints new Commercial Director appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

India is an emerging whistleblowing market

Whistleblowing is historically an area of cultural contention in India, though things are beginning to change. This reticence stems from post-colonial times and the general attitude of mistrust towards line management, reported unethical behaviour by officials and a lack of faith that business leaders will take reported concerns seriously and fear of retaliation.

The Indian Companies Act 1956 does not yet make it mandatory for companies to have whistleblowing policies and any moves to rectify this have come to nothing. Under Clause 177 of the Act every listed company must establish a vigil mechanism for directors and employees to report genuine concerns. Such a channel is a positive step, though effective implementation and protection mechanisms are the true litmus test of a well-functioning whistleblowing or speak-up process.

Too often whistleblowing hotlines are adopted in a tokenistic manner with no board involvement, weak investigation processes and poor communication regarding accessibility, protection and general rights. Subsequently, management bury their heads in the sand, convinced their business plays no part in the corruption that blights the subcontinent.

Find out more about how global whistleblowing hotlines work.

What our whistleblowing data shows

Expolink cover around 750,000 employees, contractors and third party suppliers throughout the subcontinent, in 29 Indian languages. Considering the number of people we cover for the region, the call volumes are still relatively low – we deem India to be an emerging whistleblowing market.

Male employees report considerably more than women

The vast majority of the reports Expolink receive from India relate to general grievances and HR issues. Far less common are more serious reports relating to bribery, particularly facilitation payments to public officials. This is considered ethically questionable, and of course illegal, but is a culturally-accepted and effective way of speeding up a process or transaction.

Our data shows that male employees report considerably more than women. Women feel much more reluctant to report and require reassurance that they are doing the right thing when they do so.

It is notable on our communications with whistleblowers from India that they proactively seek feedback on reports that they have made – particularly if clients haven’t been forthcoming or the whistleblower feels the investigation is taking an unnecessarily long time. This is encouraging and shows an inherent faith in the process.

The future for whistleblowing in India

There is a cultural change occurring, though not due to western influence, as some might expect. Attitudes are shifting towards encouraging and fostering ethical behaviours and accountability, awareness of individual rights and expectations within the workplace. The government and judiciary are also reviewing initiatives to tackle, and raise awareness about, corruption and general unethical concerns.

The Whistleblower Protection Bill was passed in December 2011 with the intention of protecting both whistleblowers against retaliation and businesses from false or malicious complaints. While the bill vows to act against seeking reprisal, it doesn’t outline penalties or punishments for federal officials found guilty of doing so and it doesn’t allow for anonymity. It also fails to define key terms like victimisation, leaving too much room for contextualisation, interpretation and subsequent misuse of the law.

The Bill is mainly concerned with safeguarding those exposing corruption from public officials but commentators believe, if the Bill is implemented correctly, it could have wider implications for the private sector – it could become a useful working model for successive schemes that benefit employees from all sectors.

Contact us today to find out how our market-leading global whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your employees and business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

If you enjoyed this article you can read blogs on whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles and interviews

The post Whistleblowing in India appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

Prof. David Lewis

This week, the charity Public Concern at Work published a report on the state of whistleblowing in the UK. They interviewed 1000 respondents with first-hand experience of blowing the whistle. Below we have outlined a number of the findings with how we feel, as confidential whistleblowing hotline providers, these reflect the state of play in the UK today and how we can move forward to ensure a system where both employee and employer can benefit from the honest reporting of malpractice.

In a haze of unreliable media we seem increasingly reluctant to heed the advice of experts (‘Doctor’ Gillian McKeith being an obvious caveat). While politicians and commissions scuffle over solutions that skirt the real issues, the knowledge and research of whistleblowing experts such as Professor David Lewis is eschewed. Whistleblowers continue to suffer and the public ignores the audible plight for tougher legislation and protection, hoping it will never be their cross to bear.  We need a radical approach that takes experience and expertise, and indeed hard data, into account. When ombudsmen exist for telecommunications, why no need for one to oversee whistleblowing?

Newly proposed legislation offering protection for “public interest” whistleblowing, which will only be judged to be so by a tribunal after the fact, is just a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same.

What we can learn from PCAW’s findings.

74% of whistleblowers say nothing is done about the wrongdoing.

The first to realise, or suspect malpractice, are employees. Whistleblowers must feel that they are supported by the company policy, government legislation and society at large.

Businesses should be required to;

• Provide a confidential mechanism for reporting concerns and wrongdoing
• Ensure the service is robust and employee’s trust is gained
• Provide clear information detailing reporting and investigation processes
• Foster a culture of openness and transparency, where employees feel that escalating issues is safe and is valued

Professor David Lewis told us; “the main reasons people give for being unwilling to report wrongdoing are fear of retaliation and a belief that raising a concern will make no difference. If employers can create a positive culture by committing to a confidential reporting procedure which complies with good practice and can demonstrate that they value disclosures and will protect disclosers, there is no reason why internal whistleblowing should not work.”

60% of whistleblowers receive no response from management, either negative or positive.

Failure to engage with whistleblowers shows a devastating apathy and lack of commitment to ethical business practice. Compliance and legislation are redundant without an ethical culture to support them.

In order to maintain the culture of trust business leaders must ensure;

• There is a committed and unified approach to getting the investigation right and communicating the outcome
• Procedural information is readily available in the company whistleblowing policy or code of conduct
• Employees are aware that if they are unhappy with the outcome or process they can raise the concern with an external association such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, other legal representatives, the relevant regulatory body or an MP

83% of workers blow the whistle up to two times, usually internally.

The findings indicate that the concern was raised initially with the line manager and subsequently the whistleblower was compelled to broach it again. Again, clearer processes should help. Conflicts may arise due to personal biases or involvement, or there may be training needs to address. An external 24/7 facility should be considered for optimum accessibility.

For third time reporters, 60% continued to do so internally. This is encouraging and indicates that whistleblowers want to address the issue internally; though the need for repetition exposes sizable gaps in the process. Internal grievance policies and what kinds of report are accepted should be clarified. It is highly advisable to have appropriate staff trained in the remit of the Public Interest Disclosure Act so they understand data protection issues, legislation and processes.

70% of individuals stating that their position worsened every time they raised a concern.

This statistic is troubling and highlights an on-going concern with retaliation towards whistleblowers. 66% of those who feared a specific type of response feared dismissal at first reporting attempt, rising to 71% at second and 84% at third. These fears are not reflected in the actual experiences of the research respondents. Perhaps due to the recent care home scandals, those working in that sector had the highest expectations that something would be done about their concerns; local government employees had the lowest expectations. Respondents working in the financial sector felt there was a higher likelihood that action would be taken (perhaps showing the perceived threat of shareholder or media intervention) though 81% stated their position had worsened due to blowing the whistle. Barclays’ recent internal Employee Opinion Survey showed a “cultural unwillingness to escalate issues” with employees reluctant to report due to fear of reprisal and a feeling that senior management “did not want to hear bad news” .

Speaking about their own whistleblowing research, Nick Waldron of the European Space Agency, revealed that 90.5% of respondents worked in places with a policy protecting employees against retaliation, though over half of respondents said awareness training was non-existent. Again, it seems like the intentions to protect and govern are there, but no one wants to get their hands dirty with the actualities.

The disparity between promises made by individuals such as NHS chief exec, David Nicholson, and subsequent claims of inaction due to legislative binds is simply unacceptable. In a recent interview, NHS whistleblower Rita Pal, told us, “it is very difficult for organisations to minimise negative impact on whistleblowers. The personalities of individuals cannot be easily modified – someone who is predisposed to dislike whistleblowers will continue to dislike them. Although many policies could be in place, they are unlikely to be effective if they are not implemented by management. Reducing the impact of whistleblower reprisal requires an independent organisation with no conflicts or vested interests – A National Whistleblower Centre.”

You can read the full report here.

PCAW are in the process of gathering vital information for a whistleblowing commission. They urgently need your feedback to help improve support and legislation for whistleblowers to help protect the public at large. Expolink Europe are grateful to PCAW for the use of the graphic illustrations in this article.

Contact us today to find out how our market-leading whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

If you enjoyed this article you can read blogs on whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles and interviews.

The post Whistleblowers being ignored research shows appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

In a recent interview with the President of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Ian Younger, we asked him for some advice on how to set up and maintain a compliant investigations policy. Ian has been a specialist in commercial and occupational fraud for thirty years and provides consultancy for the prevention and detection of fraud so is well placed to offer the below expert response.

Appoint an appropriate person to head up the investigation

• Do not appoint the head of department to investigate his own people. This is a conflict of interest – they may be deemed ultimately responsible for their charges’ actions.
• Ideally appoint somebody independent and objective from outside the organisation, preferably somebody who is professionally qualified specifically to carry out investigations. This rules out lawyers, accountants, and HR professionals unless they have had specific investigative procedure training and experience.
• If you must appoint somebody from within the organisation, ensure that they do have the appropriate training and the experience including professional witness training for when it goes to court.

An Investigation is a Team Effort

• An investigation should be a team effort and requires input and collaboration with legal, finance, HR, IT and operational aspects of the business. Consider the involvement of specialists such as forensic accountants, computer forensics which may be required for expert evidence.

Analyse the risks

• Determine whether the fraudulent or corrupt activity is going to cause further harm and consider whether by letting it ‘run’ additional, more robust evidence could be obtained.
• Determine an investigation/outcome strategy
• Even if the activity is criminal do not rely on the police to take action or to ultimately get a conviction.
• Consider that the burden of proof for civil proceedings is lower.
• When going down the employment route, do not delay disciplinary proceedings while waiting for any police investigation, and comply with ACAS guidelines.
• Consider insurance, regulatory and compliance requirements and the cost benefits of civil recovery of any losses.

Make sure all proper investigatory procedures are followed

• All evidence must be properly and legally obtained.
• Remember that all evidence including unused evidence e.g. investigation notes, may need to be disclosed.
• Keep an investigation policy/major decisions log.
• Have an investigation communication strategy.
• Consider, if it is appropriate, regular communications with all stakeholders – complainant, witnesses, suspect, etc. Avoid being open to allegations of a cover-up.
• Consider communicating the outcome of an investigation in the interest of transparency and as a preventative measure for anybody else considering wrongdoing.

Whistleblowing hotlines are a vital component of good corporate governance and help facilitate successful fraud investigations. As market-leading whistleblowing hotline providers Expolink can help you safeguard your business and employees. Contact us today on 01249 661604 or fill in the contact form below to find out more.

Find out more about whistleblowing best practice or read more blogs on whistleblowing.

The post How to set up and maintain a compliant investigations policy appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

With a CV ranging from President of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners to expert consultant for Transparency International, Ian Younger is extremely well placed to guide our readers through best practice in corporate governance, setting up and maintaining a successful and compliant investigations policy and to offer his insight into the future of the UK Bribery Act, whistleblowing and business ethics.

You have been a qualified Certified Fraud Examiner for over a decade. How have the fraud and compliance sectors changed in that time?

Since 2003 we have had the Fraud Act 2006, Anti-Money Laundering Regulations, the Bribery Act 2010 and any number of fraud and corruption scandals, which have raised the profile of governance and ethics in the Public and Private Sectors. AML and Bribery Act have probably had the most impact from a compliance point of view.  The Fraud Act, in theory, was designed to simplify criminal prosecutions for fraud.

How do you think the process of investigations for serious financial malpractice could be strengthened and what can the board and senior management do to support the investigative process?

There is no doubt the tone needs to come from the top. If staff and employees don’t feel there is any oversight from board level then it is easier to rationalise that it’s OK to fiddle the books. However, many organisations put a lot of effort into risk management policies but crucially have no idea what to do when they are breached. Any fraud and corruption policy needs to be underpinned by robust investigation protocols, even if the matter is dealt with through internal disciplinary procedures. There are so many pitfalls in the investigatory process that there is little point in having a robust risk management regime if it can’t be followed through to a proper resolution if, and when, it fails. A failed investigation is costly both financially and in terms of reputation and should always be left to the professionals, and that may not necessarily be the police. Nor should it be your auditors, accountants, or lawyers – unless they are specifically qualified to do so.

You produced a program for compliance with the 2010 Bribery Act based on BS10500 and Transparency International’s anti-corruption principles – can you tell us a bit more about this?

Both BS10500 and TI’s Business Principle offer a basic framework and guidance, the program I developed also draws from the Fraud Risk Management Programs I developed which go further in terms of the tools used and real world implementation.

Do you feel the program is, so far, successful in its aims/goals?

Yes, I like to think that it provides a more complete and robust solution to dealing with the challenges of fraud and corruption risks while taking a practical and proportionate view of how an organisation operates in the real world.

You are also working/have worked on ‘adequate procedures’ for the Bribery Act. Whistleblowing hotlines are recommended as an adequate procedure for businesses to protect themselves against bribery. Can you tell us more about how you see hotlines fitting in with the Act now and in the future?

As both a preventative and detective measure, whistleblowing hotlines are absolutely essential to both fraud risk management and ‘adequate procedures’ for the Bribery Act. The ACFE Global Report to the Nations identified that while almost 51% of fraud (including corruption) was detected through a tip off on a whistleblowing hotline, just over 16%, was detected by Internal Audit and a little over 14% by Management Review. I would suggest that it is even less likely that corruption is detected by anything other than a tip off as the audit trail is usually non-existent or too well covered up to be detected by management oversight alone.

From a preventative point of view a well implemented and communicated whistleblowing facility is going to make people think twice about committing corrupt acts if they know it is highly likely that somebody is going to ‘blow the whistle’ on their activities. The idea is that if the opportunity presents itself they rationalise that the risk is too great.

A recent article on the TI Blog warned not to dismiss the Bribery Act as ineffectual before it has been given the chance to work, and that we might start seeing more prosecution in the next twelve months. What are your thoughts on this?

I have certainly heard that there are some high profile prosecutions in the pipeline and there needs to be proof that the Bribery Act is enforceable. The big problem is how it is being policed. I have heard the argument that there is no point in taking the Bribery Act seriously because there is corruption all around us and nobody is doing anything about it. While I have some sympathy with this view, I would not want to be the organisation that gets caught out by such a laissez-faire attitude. TI is right to not dismiss the Act because corruption not only ruins the reputation of any organisation prosecuted under it but, on a global scale, corruption has a detrimental effect on the world economy. What I would like to see is better policing and enforcement at both ends of the spectrum and not just high profile prosecutions.

What advice would you give businesses about setting up and maintaining a successful and compliant investigations policy?  

• Appoint an appropriate person to head up the investigation

Do not appoint the head of department to investigate his own people. This is a conflict of interest – they may be deemed ultimately responsible for their charges’ actions.

Ideally appoint somebody independent and objective from outside the organisation, preferably somebody who is professionally qualified specifically to carry out investigations. This rules out lawyers, accountants, and HR professionals unless they have had specific investigative procedure training and experience.

If you must appoint somebody from within the organisation, ensure that they do have the appropriate training and the experience including professional witness training for when it goes to court.

• An Investigation is a Team Effort

An investigation should be a team effort and requires input and collaboration with legal, finance, HR, IT and operational aspects of the business. Consider the involvement of specialists such as forensic accountants, computer forensics which may be required for expert evidence.

• Analyse the risks

Determine whether the fraudulent or corrupt activity is going to cause further harm and consider whether by letting it ‘run’ additional, more robust evidence could be obtained.

• Determine an investigation/outcome strategy

Even if the activity is criminal do not rely on the police to take action or to ultimately get a conviction.

Consider that the burden of proof for civil proceedings is lower.

When going down the employment route, do not delay disciplinary proceedings while waiting for any police investigation, and comply with ACAS guidelines.

Consider insurance, regulatory and compliance requirements and the cost benefits of civil recovery of any losses.

• Make sure all proper investigatory procedures are followed

All evidence must be properly and legally obtained.

Remember that all evidence including unused evidence e.g. investigation notes, may need to be disclosed.

Keep an investigation policy/major decisions log.

• Have an investigation communication strategy.

Consider, if it is appropriate, regular communications with all stakeholders – complainant, witnesses, suspect, etc. Avoid being open to allegations of a cover-up.

Consider communicating the outcome of an investigation in the interest of transparency and as a preventative measure for anybody else considering wrongdoing.

What has been the toughest challenge of your career?

Ensuring that the standards of professionalism of those engaged in investigative activities is recognised. There are some extremely well qualified and experienced investigators out there doing the job professionally, but equally there are those who act unprofessionally and illegally and end up in the media giving the profession as a whole a bad name.  I totally support the regulation and licensing of investigators and am disappointed that the SIA has been ineffectual in implementing it. As the President of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in the UK all I can do is put our members’ professionalism to the fore and support other professional bodies such as the Association of British Investigators in implementing professional standards.

What do you consider your career high points and/or your greatest achievements?

Hopefully the real high points have yet to come. Although, I am a bit of a polymath, and I did achieve my goal of being the MD of a multi-million pound company before I was 40.

If you could set one piece of global legislation to make businesses work more ethically what would it be?

I honestly don’t feel we need any more legislation, but what I would like to see is more robust enforcement of what we have. If we are ever to rid the world of fraud and corruption and have a utopia where all economies are able to compete on a level playing field, we need political will backed up by action, and less rhetoric.

About Ian

Ian is a qualified Certified Fraud Examiner of 10 years with a PgC in Advanced Investigative Practice and Professional Certificate in Investigative Practice Level 7 (Masters), having originally trained as a Legal Investigator some 30 years ago. He subsequently moved into industry and commerce in marketing and general management, working his way up through senior management to board level.

Ian is a specialist in commercial and occupational fraud and provides consultancy for the prevention and detection of fraud, having developed a Fraud Risk Management Program based on best practice for the US and UK. Ian is a member of the Association of British Investigators and the Chartered Management Institute, with whom he is currently in the process of qualifying as a Chartered Manager. He is also President of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners UK Chapter and a PRINCE2 Practitioner for due diligence, and merger and acquisition projects, change management and business restructuring; more recently from a fraud risk management perspective.

In addition to his investigation and consultancy work, Ian delivers training for both professional bodies and commercial clients, and speaks at seminars both in the UK and in the US.

Contact us today to find out how our whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also find out what our clients say about our services and read how we helped Centrica and The Co-operative Group in our case studies.

If you enjoyed this article you can read blogs on whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles and interviews.

The post Investigating serious fraud and the future of whistleblowing and the Bribery Act – interview with Ian Younger appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

What prompted you to conduct this research?

The research was a personal undertaking, albeit with a work-related aim. ESA’s whistleblowing hotline scope is limited to incidents related to inter-personal issues and is outsourced. As an auditor I had recommended expanding the scope of the hotline to various other types of wrongdoing. In order to support the recommendation I trawled the internet for data supporting the effectiveness of hotlines in improving internal control in organisations such as ours (ESA operates in several countries across Europe), but I could find very little evidence of the effectiveness of whistleblowing hotlines in areas other than fraud detection in large organisations. I decided to conduct my own research with the help of the University of Glamorgan to determine the effectiveness of hotlines with the aim of supporting the recommendation.

What were your aims and objectives? And do you think you fulfilled them?

The research objectives were to answer the following questions:

-   Are hotlines an effective way of detecting malpractice in its various forms (fraud, conflict of interest, harassment or other HR-related incidents, inappropriate disclosure of information or security-related incidents, non-compliance with laws such as health and safety law and environmental law)?

-   Are hotlines equally effective across all organisation types, sizes, and countries?

-   Are hotlines effective in reducing malpractice (acting as a deterrent for individuals who might otherwise have acted incorrectly)?

-   How is the effectiveness of a hotline measured? What factors lead to successful hotlines?

These objectives were met, although we were disappointed not to get a larger spread of countries to respond to the survey. Eight professional bodies were approached in various countries around the world to ask for their assistance in conducting the research, but only three agreed to circulate to their members, so responses were skewed towards those countries. That said, we received responses from organisations operating in more than 30 countries worldwide.

How did you go about conducting the research?

We used the Survey Monkey on-line electronic survey design tool to distribute a 35 part questionnaire to the membership of three professional bodies, the customer lists of two whistleblowing hotline service providers (Expolink being one of them), a list of international organisations and various other ad hoc organisations known through personal and other networks. Responses were accepted from organisations without hotlines as well as those with hotlines – the respondents being presented a different set of questions depending on whether a hotline was present. A selection of follow-up interviews was undertaken to probe deeper into some of the responses provided by the questionnaires.

The research indicates there is still reticence within the business community to adopting whistleblowing hotlines (83% of respondents who had not adopted a hotline were not planning to and 43% had considered and dismissed the idea). Why do you think that is?

The two main reasons given by survey respondents were:

-   A lack of support from top management – a proposal had been made to senior management who had then dismissed it because they were not convinced that a hotline added anything to existing controls;

-   A deeply-held disdain for the concept of hotlines and their association with denunciation. This was particularly true (but not limited to) mainland Europeans. Various reasons have been suggested to explain this phenomenon, most related to the recent history of mainland Europe, occupation and collaboration during the Second World War, followed by the imposition of police states in which denunciations were a part of daily life in the Eastern bloc countries of the second half of the 20^th century.

I was surprised that there was such a low amount of respondents who launched a hotline as a response to incidents in the workplace (15%). ‘Though I was encouraged by the majority of 78% who attributed adoption to ‘best practice’. Were these the results you were also anticipating?

I am not surprised that ‘best practice’ was the main reason for adopting a hotline, particularly given that survey responses were skewed towards countries where whistleblowing is well established and supported by comprehensive legislation and best practice guidance. Implementation following incidents is probably a little lower than expected, but we should take it as a good sign that implementation is proactive rather than reactive!

Your question on reporting channels reflects our own benchmarking research – that web reporting and channels other than telephone are increasingly utilised. If you conducted the research in five years’ time would you anticipate that web reporting will overtake telephone reporting?

I think that it is possible that web reporting channels will increase in popularity, but I think that there will always be a place for a telephone hotline and also for face-to-face reporting. Whistleblowers can be very reluctant to come forward and concerned about the consequences of reporting. Just as some whistleblowers prefer face-to-face reporting and don’t trust hotlines, others are reluctant to put anything in writing, regardless of any guarantees of confidentiality. This is why it is important to give a would-be whistleblower as many avenues as possible to report wrongdoing so that they can choose the channel with which they are most comfortable.

As an independent hotline provider, your figures relating to outsourcing and availability are very interesting to us. With the increasingly global nature of business I imagine the need for 24 hour facilities will increase rapidly over the coming years to accommodate overseas workers. Would you agree?

24 hour coverage is, of course, one of the main advantages of outsourcing the hotline and it is true that as companies become more global this advantage becomes more important. However, we shouldn’t forget that most organisations do not work globally. Plenty of research clearly demonstrates the value of hotlines for large international organisations with a significant fraud risk, but that is not most of us. The majority of survey respondents were based in a single country. Even ESA works almost exclusively in one time zone (apart from limited staff at the spaceport in South America and small offices in Moscow and New York). I would argue that 24 hour coverage is important not only for multi-nationals, but also for smaller organisations working in a single time zone. This is because I think that a would-be whistleblower should be able to pick up the phone at any time to report wrongdoing. He/she may have had a long chat with his/her close family in the evening after which he/she decides finally to report an incident. If he/she has to wait until the following morning he/she may get cold feet.

I was very surprised by the high rate of respondents whose hotlines not only allowed confidentiality (95.4%) but also anonymity (92%). You state in your report that this view was shared by you and attributed to the geographical location of the respondents. Can you tell us a bit more about this?

Confidentiality is something which I believe must be protected for a hotline to have any credibility. I would have hoped for 100% assurance of confidentiality. On the other hand, I was very surprised at the number of organisations accepting anonymous calls, especially as caller anonymity can cause problems. Anonymity can attract malicious or vexatious calls and can result in a lot of ‘noise’ in the calls received. The survey showed that on average hotlines accepting anonymous calls received more calls than those which didn’t, but also that the majority of calls received did not offer evidence of actual wrongdoing (around a quarter of respondents indicated that less than 10% of calls received offered evidence of actual wrongdoing). The other problem with anonymous calls is that the claims can often not be substantiated. The caller may not leave sufficient details and cannot (by definition) be called back. Best practice says that anonymous callers should be given a reference number and be asked to call back at a pre-arranged time, but they often do not call back.

Most survey responses were received from the UK/Ireland, Australia and North America. It is certainly the case that companies working under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) regulations must provide anonymous hotlines and we speculated that this may have rubbed off on non-SOX companies working in the same regions.

The responses to your question, is there a policy to protect staff who use the hotline from retaliation, was also very encouraging (90.5% responded in the affirmative) – can you tell us a bit more about the profile of those who said yes, what countries/sectors they were from?

There was no real pattern to those organisations which did not have a policy to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. They were, somewhat surprisingly, all based in Western countries, but they came from a range of sectors and organisation sizes.

On a less positive note, over half of respondents said there was no staff training on the use of the hotline and on protection against retaliation. This, as well as the amount of hotlines which received no calls as shown in Chart 18, seems to indicate that, although information is available in policy documents, there is a decidedly lax attitude to the on-going management and communication of hotlines that needs addressing. Would you agree?

On-going promotion of the hotline is an area of concern. There may be a blaze of publicity when the hotline is first launched (92% of survey respondents indicated that their hotline was publicised on launch), but the main challenge is to maintain the momentum in the years after the launch, particularly when there are no calls. Hotline operators should not be discouraged from continuing to promote the hotline by the lack of calls, as a single well-founded concern can fully justify the effort and expense of implementing the hotline.

79% of respondents reported positive results from adopting a hotline with improvements to internal controls and sanctions for malpractice leading the score board. With fraud detection being such a prominent motivator for adopting a hotline and an increasing risk in globalised business, would you anticipate the third highest response of recovery of misappropriated funds, being higher on the list in the future?

I’m not sure. Most of the available research on hotline effectiveness relates to fraud detection and recovery of misappropriated funds – largely because this is a very tangible positive outcome of hotline implementation. Hotline implementation for multi-national companies with a large fraud risk is a “no-brainer” – the hotline will pay for itself many times over. I would be surprised, therefore, if that market was not already close to saturation and would not expect the recovery of misappropriated funds to rise more quickly than the other positive outcomes of implementing a hotline.

Chart 19 details evolution in the instances of detected wrongdoing since the introduction of the hotline. How did these results differ from your expectations?

The ‘ideal’ trend in detected wrongdoing following the implementation of a hotline might be an initial increase, as potential whistleblowers gain the confidence to take the plunge, followed by a steady decrease as would-be wrongdoers defer to the possibility of being reported and punished. However, this trend was observed in very few survey responses. Most respondents saw no change in the number of reported incidents, or a small increase. Some actually saw a decrease, although these were explained by the fact that the hotlines had been implemented as the result of an incident, and no further incidents had been reported following implementation.

A further quesion deals with explanations for considering hotlines ineffective. Disappointingly, culture of organisation/country incompatible with a hotline were both very high in terms of responses at 24 and 21% respectively. Can you tell us a bit more about how these responses related to geographical location of the respondent and what sector they operated in?

We should remember that these are percentages of those respondents who considered their hotlines ineffective (i.e. a population of only 19). However, it is of concern that this many organisations have come to the conclusion that the hotline is not for them after having implemented and operated it for some time. The respondents who said that their organisation’s culture was incompatible with a hotline represented a mix of organisation types and regions. There were only seven and just two of those had outsourced their hotlines. Six respondents indicated that the hotline was incompatible with the country in which they operate. There was no common pattern to these, although numbers are too low to draw any reliable conclusions.

Chart 24, hotline effectiveness by organisation type shows that government organisations rated lowest. What would you attribute this to?

We used two metrics to measure hotline effectiveness – an increase in the detection of wrongdoing and the opinion of the hotline operator on the hotline’s effectiveness. Government hotlines did not perform significantly worse than those in other sectors in terms of increases in detection of wrongdoing, but the opinions of hotline operators in government departments were lower than those in other sectors. Comments received in questionnaire responses would seem to indicate that at least one reason for a more negative opinion in the public sector is that hotlines have been imposed on government departments by central instruction and have sometimes been implemented reluctantly.

The responses to hotline effectiveness by geographical region was particularly illuminating (see Chart 23). Can you tell us whether the results reflected your expectations?

Again, we used the two metrics of increase in detected wrongdoing and hotline operators’ opinions. It is interesting that respondents from regions where whistleblowing is well established and supported by comprehensive legislation (Australasia, North America, UK/Ireland) were less positive than those from other regions, possibly in the light of longer experience, or as a result of resistance to wider-ranging legal requirements in those regions. In terms of increased detection rates, the largest increase was in fraud. However, in 33% to 54% of responses (depending on region), there was no increase in fraud detection and for other types of wrongdoing even higher numbers of responses saw no increase in detection. This was surprising, and a little disappointing. However, a number of respondents indicated that the presence of a hotline was justification in itself because it gives employees a formal, confidential mechanism for reporting wrongdoing that they witness. The fact that it has not been used should not, in their opinion, be seen as a failure.

Worryingly,the survey reviewing hotline effectiveness by organisation size, showed that companies with between 101-1000 employees scored 0% for a number of criteria in detection of wrongdoing; from fraud to detection of confidentiality and security cases. Why do you think this is?

There are a number of possible explanations, some more positive than others. Firstly, it may be simply that an organisation with fewer employees will receive fewer calls to the hotline. On the other hand, it may be that the intimacy of a small organisation increases the risk of confidentiality breaches, or that such intimacy leads to lenient sanctions for wrongdoers – fuelling the belief that reporting is too risky and not worthwhile. A more positive interpretation might be that team spirit in small organisations leads to less wrongdoing.

Your research shows greater detection and effectiveness rates for outsourced whistleblowing hotlines. Did you anticipate this result?

In fact, while operator opinion is more positive for outsourced hotlines, the picture is mixed with increases in detection rates – outsourced hotlines outperform in-house hotlines in areas such as fraud and conflict of interest and in-house hotlines outperform outsourced hotlines in areas such as confidentiality/security and environment-related incidents. These results were not unexpected. The professional image of an outsourced hotline is likely to result in a higher operator opinion. Furthermore, I think that it is likely that whistleblowers generally have more confidence in the confidentiality of an outsourced hotline so it is not surprising that they are more likely to report fraud (which can present significant personal risk) to an outsourced, rather than an in-house hotline.

Did you feel that the response from the survey was sufficient to get a true feel of the subject and community mood and will you be undertaking future surveys/research?

Given the circulation of the questionnaire, the number of responses was a little disappointing. However, it was adequate to get a good feel of attitudes towards whistleblowing hotlines and to provide adequate data to perform meaningful analysis. The geographical spread of responses was not as wide as we would have liked.

I have no plans for future research, although there is scope for further research. It would be interesting to conduct similar research which includes the staff opinion of the hotline – not only those who have used the hotline, but also those who have not. Would they use it if they witnessed wrongdoing? If not, why not?

What do you think are the main lessons organisations can learn from this research?

The main lesson is not to expect too much from the hotline. A hotline may be in place for a number of years with no valid calls, but one single call can justify all the investment in effort and money. The problem is, in the absence of calls, how does the hotline operator know if their hotline is effective? This is a dilemma facing hotline operators in all but the largest organisations and is the reason for which they need to be clear from the start of what they want their hotline to achieve and need to monitor achievement of the hotline objectives. Staff opinions should be sought, not only from those who have reported wrongdoing, but also from other staff, who are potential future users .

From the ESA’s perspective would this change the way you view your own whistleblowing procedures?

Unfortunately the scope of the hotline will stay the same for the time-being, as the survey results did not provide adequate evidence of the effectiveness of hotlines for organisations of the size of ESA. However, HR will be keeping more comprehensive records and actively seeking feedback from whistleblowers to enable meaningful statistical analysis of the hotline’s effectiveness. In addition, the next staff survey is likely to ask all staff for their opinions of the hotline.

About Nick;

Nick Waldron, CMIIA, CISA, MSc, is an internal auditor and Information Systems auditor at the European Space Agency’s Paris headquarters from where he undertakes a range of operational, financial, IT and project-based audits across the Agency’s international activities. His career in audit began with the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh from where he moved to UNESCO in Paris. After a stint in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, The Netherlands, Nick returned to Paris to work for ESA. Nick lives with his wife and three daughters in the Paris suburbs. He loves his mum and can hold his beer.

Contact us today to find out how our market-leading whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

If you enjoyed this article you can read blogs on whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles and interviews.

The post The effectiveness of whistleblowing hotlines in detecting and deterring malpractice. A global survey by the European Space Agency appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

Incentivisation

Some commentators have indicated that incentivisation could enhance the whistleblowing process by encouraging people to come forward. What are your thoughts and, should this come about, what do you consider to be potential barriers to acceptance would be and how could they be overcome?

In theory, this is an excellent idea. In practise, not all whistleblowers are evidence based, nor do they raise concerns in good faith. Human nature being as it is, there would always be those who, having decided to obtain the offered incentive, would then set out to find something about which to raise concerns, even if they had to make it up. The next point is that this phenomenon has not been examined in detail and its frequency will not be prevalent until incentivisation is common practice.

While it will undoubtedly increase the number of people raising concerns, the difficulty will be in differentiating types of whistleblower. That would depend on the circumstances and the environment where the concerns are raised.

I am not an avid supporter of financial incentives per se at present. I believe that fraud has many faces and, as a cynic, I am concerned that the researchers in the US have not studied the phenomena and potential for malicious reporting. There are no safety mechanisms in place at the moment.

There will be inevitable conflicts between the interests of the financial organisation vs. public interest vs. interests of the whistleblower. So I would be on the side of caution and suggest that more work needs to be done to provide protection to whistleblowers from reprisal – and protection to the financial companies [from malicious whistleblowers]. I think if these safety nets are put in place, the legislation may be far more effective without negative consequences.

I worry about financial incentives for whistleblowing in relation to the public sector – it is so easy to be malicious in an organisation that is already failing due to poor public policy. Read more here. On a personal note – I would never accept a financial reward. In fact, if I was given money, I would hand it over to the patient population. This is a personal choice issue though. Money does not motivate or inspire me much. I guess if it did, I wouldn’t have raised concerns about patient safety while placing myself in a precarious situation. My reward would be an improvement in patient safety and a simple “thank you” would be enough. I am, however, in support of non-financial rewards and accolades to the whistleblower. I think some recognition is good for those who are vindicated.

I am a little more cautious about financial incentives than Prof David Lewis. Even though some authorities offer financial incentives already, I am uncertain whether it would work specifically in the health service. This aspect needs to be thought out and studied carefully before any implementation. Healthcare is often so poor in the NHS that, if financial incentives were in place, staff may view it as an easy way to make money. Which then leads to the question of which budget the incentives would come from – if it is the NHS budget, a high rate of whistleblowing and payouts may have a negative impact on patient safety.

In conclusion, whistleblowing is a multifactorial problem. The solutions are difficult. I would be far more supportive of non-financial rewards as a way of honouring whistleblowers. Recently, the Royal College of Anaesthetists paved the way by giving Professor Steve Bolsin an award for raising concerns that led to the Bristol Inquiry . One of the biggest problems for medical whistleblowers is the professional isolation they suffer. It is therefore important for the Royal Colleges to move to recognising the contributions of whistleblowers to the area of patient safety. This principle should also be applied to non-medical areas and the government should look into rewarding whistleblowers that have placed their livelihood at risk in the public interest.

Lastly, the most important reward that can be given to a whistleblower is continuous employment. They are often individuals with good skills and stamina who could contribute to society as a whole, yet we have a population of unemployable whistleblowers. The government has never looked into what can be done to make them employable again. Therefore, an offer of employment, free retraining, and alternative skills may be considerably better than just financial incentives. It is also a more practical solution to fixing the life of a whistleblower.

Media attitudes to whistleblowing

The narrative forces at play in the media when it comes to whistleblowing have historically been problematic. Would you agree that mass media attitudes to whistleblowing are improving?

Firstly, having spent some time reading your website here, it is probably the best selection of intelligent, well written articles I have ever seen. Secondly, I wish the media would follow your example.

I say this because, on a daily basis, I am frustrated with the media’s attitude towards whistleblowers. They are often paraded through TV, newspapers etc as “victims”. I don’t look at myself as a victim – I look at myself as a doctor who did their job. Evidence-based whistleblowers are often intelligent and very good problem solvers. They may well suffer trauma due to their experiences but I do not believe the message that “If you whistleblow, you suffer from stress” is a good description to present to the public.

Moreover, while they concentrate on the “woe is me” scenario”, there is no “investigative journalism” surrounding the issues they raised concerns about. The media understands very little about the multiple issues affecting a whistleblower. I have found them to be judgmental, ignorant and often insulting. If you do not fit into their “image” of a “whistleblower” then they do not take people seriously.

In an attempt to help genuinely interested journalists, I wrote a Guidance for Journalists Dealing with Whistleblowers.

I cannot say the media have ever been helpful during my whistleblowing. Indeed, having featured Elderly Helped to Die in the Sunday Times 2^nd April 2000, the Sunday Times reneged on all their promises to follow it up and washed their hands of the story. Luckily, I was able to write my own narrative on the internet and never relied on the media again.

Whistleblower retaliation, training and communication

Whistleblower retaliation is an increasing concern in both the public and the private sector. How do you think organisations can work to minimise negative impacts on whistleblowers?

I have always believed that the UK requires a National Whistleblowing Centre, independent of any other organisations. Such a body could have free advocacy that gathers evidence (often held by the employer) and liaises with the employer, counselling, a support worker, employment advisers, financial assistance/advisers, retraining opportunities in the event of unemployability. A charity like MIND can provide all this to mentally ill patients. There is no reason why the UK cannot consider opening a National Whistleblower Centre.

It is very difficult for organisations directly involved in any given incident to minimise negative impact on whistleblowers. Firstly, the personalities of individuals cannot be easily modified, regardless of training or legislation – someone who is predisposed to dislike whistleblowers will continue to dislike them, no matter what steps are taken. This is particularly true if the actions of the whistleblower have a correspondingly negative impact upon the person who dislikes them, regardless of whether or not they are directly or indirectly responsible for the circumstances.

Although many policies could be in place, they are unlikely to be effective if they are not implemented by management, and consequently there is no specific solution for whistleblowers. Moreover, accepting that someone is a genuine whistleblower, rather than a vexatious whistleblower or simple troublemaker, is a fairly high expectation for any employer.

Reducing the impact of whistleblower reprisal requires an independent organisation with no conflicts or vested interests – A National Whistleblower Centre.

Dr Rita Pal

How do you think organisations like the NHS should approach training and communication about whistleblowing? What channels do you think would be most effective for the latter and, in an ideal world, how would responsibility be shared and honoured?

The NHS does not understand the multifactorial nature of whistleblowing. We often have a situation where non-whistleblowers “think” they know what is “right” for whistleblowers. In actual fact, all policies put in place since the Bristol Inquiry have been shown to have failed, and will continue to fail.

The issues/style of training and even communication that will be effective cannot be determined fully without a full investigation into the exact failures that result in the problems. That said, there are a number of ways that the regulatory bodies can improve matters. None of the NHS regulatory bodies have taken a sufficiently pro-active attitude to improving education, nor have they understood the need to improve recruitment – a change in culture will require a change in the types of personalities hired.

“Somehow the medical profession has become so good at selecting those that will not report senior colleagues that the selection processes of medical schools has intuitively or deliberately selected 87% non-whistle blowers (Goldie, Schwartz et al. 2003). This observation is deeply worrying to those who believe that one of the mechanisms for quality improvement in health care is reporting poor care (Bolsin 2003; Bolsin, Faunce et al. 2005).

In terms of training, the key really is to start at the beginning and attempt to alter the medical culture by essentially selecting a type of medical student that is likely to advocate for patient safety, bridge the communication gap between doctor and patient and support transparency. Essentially, this is a root and branch redevelopment of the profession. Without it, no amount of training or education will encourage a certain type of old-style personality into understanding the issues of whistleblowing.

Making the act of raising concerns acceptable practice is probably the only way to improve the system. This is essentially normalising a behaviour pattern that is currently perceived as abnormal. The mistreatment of whistleblowers is essentially due to personality dysfunction within management or seniors. These established behavioural and personality flaws cannot be corrected by retraining or education. Prejudices will always remain, much as one cannot retrain/educate a person who is racist to like the ethnic minority. The situation is very similar with the stigma faced by whistleblowers. One cannot train the work force to “like” whistleblowers when the normalised behaviour pattern is to dislike them.

We don’t live in an ideal world. Sadly, all recommendations and policies made are for an ideal world. We live in a world where the ingrained prejudices against whistleblowers have to be overcome. This will take time, a root and branch reform, a different style of education normalising transparency and a pro-active recruitment drive to improve the National Health Service. Like disability or race discrimination, you cannot legislate the thought processes in a person’s mind. In terms of authorities that require education, I believe the courts have no understanding of the plight of whistleblowers and neither do the regulatory bodies. It is vital that educational material is sent to those making judgments and decisions about whistleblowers.

Alternatively, one could view the whole situation as a human problem – the human desire to correct injustice in conflict with the human dislike of whistleblowers. If the human element could be removed from the equation, then the problem would simply cease to exist. Speaking purely theoretically, and at an abstract level, this could perhaps be achieved by introducing a system of checks and balances into the very fabric of the NHS, such that the whole organisation became self-documenting, and, therefore, automatically aware of developing problems.

How such a system might work, and the steps required to even assess its viability are far beyond the scope of this discussion, but a means of identifying problems that are inherent in the system, and therefore don’t rely on whistleblowers – and the consequences of their actions – could, in theory, have far greater benefits for service users than conventional attempts to encourage and protect whistleblowers. Such self-diagnostic systems already exist in other walks of life – such as communications networking technology, for example – so the concept isn’t too far fetched, although, of course, making the notion work in the context of a healthcare system presents many challenges.

Contact us today to find out how our whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

If you enjoyed this article you can read more interviews with Dr Pal; or blogs on whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles.

The post Preventing whistleblower retaliation, incentivisation, media attitudes and how to ensure a better future for whistleblowing – interview with Dr Rita Pal appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

NHS whistleblower, Dr Rita Pal talks to Expolink about vilification of whistleblowers in the health service by management, and the lack of protection afforded by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This is the second of three interviews with Dr Pal which will include articles on incentivisation, public and media attitudes to whistleblowers and preventing whistleblower retaliation.

Public Interest Disclosure Act

Public Concern at Work has described the Public Interest Disclosure Act as “not fit for purpose”. What are your thoughts?

Firstly, I agree with them. I believe PIDA was badly thought out and drafted. Prof Dave Lewis’ research broadly states that PIDA is currently ineffective. Despite this, I note the government has taken no action to improve matters. Moreover, I note that the government’s position continues to support PIDA.

This is reckless, and demonstrates a lack of insight into PIDA’s failings. On a practical level, PIDA is essentially a post whistleblowing potential remedy – it is by no means guaranteed.

Going into court is a bit like a lottery. Whether you win or not is entirely dependent on a range of factors, many of them unconnected with the merits of their case. The whistleblower may or may not be represented by a trade union. If they are not represented, then their (probably limited) resources are up against large organisations with deep pockets.

If you think about it, PIDA does not actually give any whistleblower any in-house protection. What is it to a large organisation to take a case to court and fight it? During a fight they may – and often do – character assassinate the whistleblower in order to win. This happened in the case of Perkin v St Georges.

On a practical level, the PIDA is fraught with difficulties. Funding litigation is one problem; character assassination in Employment Tribunals is another issue. The path to justice is paved with extreme difficulties. Furthermore, vindication in the courts does not guarantee subsequent fair treatment by the employer. Litigation, much like whistleblowing, attracts stigma.

Many whistleblowers have criticised the adequacy and high costs of legal representation. Litigation and the race for justice have resulted in bankruptcy in some cases. Mud sticks on a whistleblower, and this can prejudice the manner in which legal representatives and the court perceives them.

In 2005, the Court of Appeal judgment in Ian Perkin’s case concluded that employers will only have to argue that an employee was “difficult”, or conducted an aggressive defence in a disciplinary hearing, to be entitled to sack him or her. Lord Justice Wall stated, “Mr Perkin was, of course entitled to defend himself, but the manner of his defence and in particular his attacks on the honesty and financial probity and integrity of his colleagues opened the door in my judgment to the tribunal being able to find that any other disciplinary process would have ended with the same result”.

Professor David Lewis examined the last ten years of the PIDA [Journal of Business Ethics DOI 10.107/s10551-008-9899-5]. He asks the question – are whistleblowers adequately protected? He concludes that “PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers” and makes 12 recommendations for change. “Despite the European Commission’s acknowledgement that whistleblowers can play a part in the fight against corruption, the author notes that the common standards for their protection is a long way off”.

Management Attitudes to whistleblowing

What impacts have you seen on staff morale as a result of the vilification of whistleblowers by management?

Medical mobbing is endemic in the NHS. Whistleblowers often suffer character assassination. Sir Ian Kennedy wrote: “There is a real fear among junior staff (particularly among junior doctors and nurses) that to comment on colleagues, particularly consultants, is to endanger their future work prospects. The junior needs a reference and a recommendation; nurses want to keep their jobs. This is a powerful motive for keeping quiet.”

I suspect this is done to “set an example” to the health sector that if they raise concerns, they will meet with the same fate. From a medical point of view, vilification results in reduced morale. There is no enthusiasm to raise concerns to improve the service offered to the public. Staff therefore try to do the bare minimum – i.e. their job and nothing extra.

As NHS management and the grass roots health workers do not communicate with each other adequately, there is some resentment between the two groups. Management believe they know best and fail to discuss issues with clinicians. It is this negative effect on motivation that results in a poor patient safety profile.

At the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry, it was noted that doctors and other front-line staff did not raise concerns about poor care. Yet the Inquiry did not ask why this should be, even though the answers are not hard to find: Elizabeth Clare, a nurse who blew the whistle at Mid Staffordshire, told the Nursing Times ‘As a whistleblower I felt completely unsupported and thought I might as well have kept my mouth shut. I put my neck on the line and as a result staff morale was still at an absolute low, and patient care hadn’t improved at all.’ The staff were reported to their respective regulatory bodies.

The dilemma now for many front-line staff is this: if you whistleblow you are vilified by management, if you don’t, you are sent to your regulatory body. This specific dilemma was never examined, much less resolved by the Inquiry. This is a real, practical and long-term problem for staff faced with raising concerns about poor care. In 2004, the website Doctors.net.uk carried out a survey on patient safety. 2500 doctors responded. 81% said they did not report errors because they did not trust their NHS Trust.

Contact us today to find out how our whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

If you enjoyed this article you might also like to read about protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles.

The post The Public Interest Disclosure Act and management attitudes to whistleblowing – interview with Dr Rita Pal appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

Dr Rita Pal talks to Expolink about her experiences as an NHS whistleblower, the trials of stigmatisation and taking on the General Medical Council.

Dr Rita Pal is an independent medical journalist and well established, evidence-based NHS whistleblower, based in the UK. Between 1999-2007, she worked as a psychiatrist in the National Health Service and was the first whistleblower to raise concerns in the Midlands hospitals run by the same local health authority. Her concerns were ignored, with the net result that many patients died needlessly. Her name was placed on the Royal Society of Medicine Wall of Honour following support from a number of doctors.

This is the first in a series of three interviews with Dr Pal that Expolink is serialising over the course of the next few weeks; covering incentivisation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, public and media attitudes to whistleblowers and preventing whistleblower retaliation.

You were the first doctor to successfully conduct civil litigation under the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and in Defamation against the General Medical Council UK. Can you tell us more about your experiences with this?

Junior doctors are usually represented by defence unions. My defence unions have never been supportive of me since my early years as a whistleblower. It is extremely dangerous to litigate without the support of a defence union. I therefore risked losing what little I had.

The background to the case is as follows – I raised concerns on substandard patient care at North Staffordshire NHS Trust in 1999. Following that, the complex set of events that followed can only be described as medical mobbing.

Investigations were focussed on me while I was told that my concerns had no basis in fact. I continued to raise these concerns locally, to the Department of Health then the national papers and finally to the General Medical Council. Each organisation took no action. Character assassinations began at the Trust and were subsequently spread widely to the West Midlands Deanery and eventually to the General Medical Council.

The chronology of events is set out in the particulars of claim in the case Pal v General Medical Council, Catherine Green, Sarah Bedwell, Peter Lynn. Essentially, I was rendered unemployable after obtaining registration from the General Medical Council. My references were effectively ruined. I struggled to obtain a locum post and finally was able, with difficulty, to work in the NHS on short term contracts so no one would know my past.

I did this successfully until untrue rumours began to circulate about my so-called “mental state” on a doctors-only website. This started to infiltrate my work place, to such an extent that I was carrying a medical clearance in my bag so that I could clear up any rumours. Work became almost impossible.

In my quest to discover the source of these rumours, I made a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to the General Medical Council. The results were shocking. In a series of internal memos, the General Medical Council discussed conducting a “discreet inquiry” into my mental state.

This did not involve contacting me by telephone (or at all!), or assessing my medical records. Instead, the GMC conducted covert, discreet inquiries into my life. I have not been able to access all of the records relating to their activities, but those that I have indicate that the GMC had collected copies of my website criticising the NHS, comments I had made about the author, Stephen King, of whom I am a long-time fan, and poetry that I had written.

Then, as now, locum employment forms demanded that candidates declare both ongoing and completed GMC investigations, and it was (and is) common for Trusts to cross-check applicants’ responses with the GMC. I felt this covert inquiry that had been ongoing for two years without my knowledge was damaging to my employment prospects as it “raised a question” over my fitness to practise.

Facing impending unemployability, I asked the GMC to remove their damaging memos immediately. They refused to do so. At the time, many lawyers I had consulted felt the GMC could not be sued. I was left with little alternative but to act as a litigant in person until I could find a lawyer. The initial claim form was written by two of us after we had read the legal textbooks. I decided I had nothing to lose as I would be unemployable soon enough – the stigma of an illness I did not have was already becoming catastrophic. Eventually, my colleague’s friend, a solicitor called Richard Price, agreed to run the case for me with payment up front.

Believe me, paying lawyers for practically every breath they take is not easy for any junior doctor. My task was to find £30,000 within 1.5 months. Along with this came the risk of more than £90,000 costs if I lost the hearing.

The GMC continued to refuse the removal of the memos despite numerous requests in court. They proudly cited a typographical error as a high water mark for questioning my mental health. To my knowledge, they still stand by this. The transcripts and case commentary can be downloaded here.

Eventually, the first hearing was won by my barrister Robert Jay QC [currently famed for the Levenson Inquiry]. In it, Harris HHJ was scathing. He stated as follows :

JUDGE HARRIS: For myself I don’t really see why somebody complaining about the behaviour of doctors or the GMC, if that is what they are doing, why that should raise a question about their mental stability, unless anybody who wishes to criticise “the party” is automatically showing themselves to be mentally unstable because they don’t agree with the point of view put forward on behalf of the GMC or the party.

MISS COLLIER (barrister representing the GMC): That in itself certainly would not be enough.

JUDGE HARRIS: It is like a totalitarian regime: anybody who criticises it is said to be prima facie mentally ill – what used to happen in Russia.

MISS COLLIER: My Lord, that is very far from the circumstances of this case.

JUDGE HARRIS: Of course it is…

The GMC eventually agreed to remove the damaging memos. They issued me with a letter stating that they had no concerns about my fitness to practise and we settled the case. There was no national media coverage of this case. The legal implications of this case can be read in an article by a legal firm.

You have requested an inquiry, by way of a petition, to establish proper evidence-based research into whistleblowing. What has been the response so far and why should people sign it?

The petition is for a Health Select Committee Inquiry into Medical Whistleblowing. I have requested a HSC Inquiry for many years now via my MP. Each request has been refused. If the system didn’t have anything to conceal, there would be no harm in having an inquiry.

I have sought this inquiry because there is very little research into medical whistleblowing. At present, we have a situation where everyone purports to know what is best for whistleblowers – but no one has asked the whistleblowers what problems they have faced.

There are a number of high profile whistleblowers, but they are not quite representative of the majority, who don’t have the advantage of publicity to open various doors for them. It is these ordinary, voiceless whistleblowers that should be interviewed by the HSC.

The current approach by the Department of Health will not work because it is not based on scientific research.

“In order to make a difference and improve patient safety, we need a logical way of investigating the problems faced by average whistleblowers, so that recommendations can be made to protect future staff and improve patient safety.”

People should sign it because, quite simply, if they don’t, patient safety is at substantial risk. The response is always good to a petition but the publicity is poor. The national media are often reluctant to feature this one, for reasons unknown to me. The petition is currently publicised on the internet daily by my wonderful friend Mary Foord Brown, who works tirelessly to circulate it.

Contact us today to find out how our whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also read how we helped Centrica, Essex CC, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies and find out what our clients say about our services.

If you enjoyed this article you might also like to read whether the future of UK whistleblowing is incentivised, is whistleblowing ethical and more whistleblowing and corporate governance related articles.

The post Experiences of an NHS whistleblower – interview with Dr Rita Pal appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.

For more videos like this, visit Governance TV. Produced by yBC

Contact us today to find out how our whistleblowing hotline can help you protect your business. You can also find out what our clients say about our services and read how we helped Centrica, CIMA and The Co-operative Group in our case studies.

The post Scott Bridgen, Global Whistleblowing Hotline Manager on Governance TV appeared first on Expolink Europe Ltd.