Even in the new culture of openness that employees are told now exists, blowing the whistle on wrongdoing can often mean suspension and blighted career prospects, writes Maggie Murray

Maggie Murray
SocietyGuardian.co.uk

Thursday March 22, 2001

Blowing the whistle on a colleague or raising awareness of bad practice takes courage, even in the new culture of openness that employees are told now exists.

For the individual who decides to challenge the status quo, the implications of the decision to highlight wrongdoing may mean, at best, a period of stressful suspension, and, at worst, blighted career prospects.

Last year, Sian Caiach, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, raised concerns that a fellow doctor at the Prince Philip hospital in Llanelli was using NHS time and resources to treat private patients. An audit commission investigation substantiated some of her claims and found that the hospital was subsidising private patients and had lost income of £7,500.

Since that time, Ms Caiach has not worked and has been on what is described as extended maternity leave for almost eight months. She is also the subject of an investigation by the Royal College of Surgeons after allegations were made about her clinical practice.

"It has been an intensely unpleasant, stressful and distressing experience. With the knowledge that I now have of what can happen to someone who raises awareness in these circumstances, it would be an extremely close call as to whether I would be prepared to do the same again. It is not just your own personal victimisation but the effects on those around you. It is hard to hide the psychological distress," she says.

Bunny Pinnington, a school nurse, also knows the cost of blowing the whistle. Over three years ago, while working in a Swansea school for children with profound disabilities, she was given a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) instruction for a child, by the head teacher. She alleges that this was done without consultation with the child's grandparents, who were the child's carers, and against the medical opinion of the child's consultant.

"I can't put into words what I have gone through after I raised this issue. I was still working and so was the head teacher. It was intolerable and the subtle isolation and stress was immense. Everybody seems to close ranks and those with power seem to win in these cases. You find that there is very little support; you are on your own. After taking sick leave and then returning, I raised the same issue again and was suspended," she says.

In November last year, the Welsh assembly announced that there would an in-depth inquiry into the issues surrounding the care plans of children with special needs in Wales. Although ministers at the assembly did not feel that the events at the Swansea school warranted a public inquiry, there was a commitment to "urgently take forward this inquiry" because of the importance of the general issues that had been raised. Ms Pinnington's case is the subject of a preliminary appeal before the employment appeals tribunal in April.

Geoffrey Hunt, who has carried out extensive research on whistle blowing, both in social services and the health service, says there remains considerable secrecy in public and private organisations.

"Managers are still not listening, or [they are] victimising, those who raise concerns. At the moment, Freedom to Care, the organisation founded to give support to whistleblowers, is looking at the case of a senior nurse working in residential care. She was an experienced and well thought of practitioner, but when she raised questions about low standards, she was demoted and has now resigned in protest," he says.

"Residential care is an area where we see a lot of wrongdoing and a lot of victimisation. I would say that, in many ways, despite public disclosure legislation, the situation is no better. There has been a limited cultural acceptance that those people play an important role in highlighting serious concerns, but there is still a pervasive climate of fear."

In July 1999, the Public Interest Disclosure Act came into force after concern over a number of high profile cases, such as the north Wales child abuse scandal and the inquiry into the baby deaths at Bristol Royal Infirmary.

Caroline Miller of Public Concern at Work, the charity that campaigned for the legislation, says it is designed to protect people who raise concerns that are in the public interest.

"It covers a wide range and could be used for instance where there are issues surrounding abuse within an institution, or fraud. There have been several notable successes under the act. The reason for our existence is to change the culture so that it is safe to raise concerns," she says.

She adds. "The act is a lever but the culture is changing very slowly. Interestingly, the cases that have gone forward under the act tend to be in the private sector, but the majority of calls we receive on our helpline are from the public sector."

One of the problems, according to the organisation, is that there has been almost no publicity about the legislation.

"It was a private members bill and it has been very much left to us as a small charity to try to publicise how the legislation can help," says director Guy Dehn.

"At the moment the government is spending £5m telling people that they have the right to a paid annual holiday. We would say that most employees are probably aware of this but that they are very unlikely to understand their rights under the public disclosure legislation."

And, he points out, the legislation cannot stop unscrupulous employers harassing employees who speak out if no one knows about it or uses it.

"The importance of whistleblowing is that it is a way of emphasising the importance of bearing witness to something that needs to be brought out into the public domain. If the legislation were properly publicised, it would result in employers realising that it is not in their interest to try to cover things up."

• Public Concern at Work can be contacted on 020 404 6609.