M3 Explain why whistleblowers and those whose practice or behaviour is being questioned should be protected.

Since Rotherham, and other high profile adult cases, such as Winterbourne View and Stafford Hospital, professional bodies are emphasising that members abide strictly by their codes of practice. All health and social care codes have the general principle that service users should not be harmed, and that professionals should speak up if they see harm happening (Mandelstam 2013, p 202). Consequently, any professional who knowingly fails to report abuse will face disciplinary action and could even lose their professional registration. This is important if there is to be a change in culture where managers do not try to cover up wrongdoings in their organisation and actively encourage their employees to be diligent in reporting any wrongdoings. One positive step to support whistleblowers has been the passing of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which protects whistleblowers in certain circumstances (Mandelstam, 2013 p 272). Following the law and proper procedures is also important for the protection of a person who has had an allegation made against them. This essay now explains why it is just as important to protect the person whose practice or behaviour is being questioned.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to a fair hearing. This is an absolute right and includes the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is important to apply this principle in the workplace as it is fundamental to democracy itself. A system which does not follow this principle is not only breaking the law but, moreover, setting a bad example to the workforce. An organisation which does not follow this basic human right will get a bad reputation and find it hard to attract and retain good staff which will then have a knock on effect on the quality of care that is delivered to the children. Respecting human rights is also important to show that the organisation is about good values. Therefore, following proper procedures sets a good example to the workforce. This includes keeping the person informed of the progress and outcome of any investigation and the implications for any disciplinary or related process. Where a serious allegation has been made employers should consider whether the member of staff should be suspended from duty. This would include any case where there is cause to suspect a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm, or the allegation warrants investigation by the police, or the allegation is so serious that it might constitute grounds for gross misconduct and dismissal. If suspended, they should be kept up to date about events in the work place, and if the person is a member of a trade union or professional association he or she should be advised to contact that organisation at the outset. Because it could leave many people still questioning their innocence with people saying ‘there is no smoke without fire’. It is important that the organisation undertakes the investigation in a way that keeps all of the information confidential and only available to the workers who need to know and are involved in the case. Failure to do this will lead to gossip and even slander and will have major consequences to the person. It can affect their professional and personal lives. For example, it most probable will still go on their professional record that an allegation has been made and the person may find it hard to gain employment in another organisation or even prevent their career development if they are to stay with the same organisation.

Conclusion

Sadly, malicious allegations against an individual do happen and for this reason it is important for the employer to offer full protection to the person and follow proper procedures. The key to democratic values both in society and the microcosm is the presumption of a person’s innocence until they are found guilty. It is important that everything is done to avoid the potential libel and slander of an individual which will damage their career and may lead to them being dismissed unfairly. Having unfair and unjust procedures in the workplace is therefore likely to create a nervous workforce which will ultimately have negative consequences for the children. An organisation which does not espouse these values will also reinforce the ‘turning a blind eye’ culture that is present in too many organisations, and this in turn will strengthen the abusers power against courageous workers who do raise concerns. The  into the Rotherham abuse case found that many frontline workers had tried to voice concerns about child sexual exploitation but managers had downplayed concerns. The report also highlighted a “macho” and “bullying” culture within the council as a contributing factor. Deciding to break rank and tackle this is fraught with difficulties and powerful individuals and groups will use the unspoken threat of personal and professional ruin to keep them quiet.

Furthermore, high profile examples of child care workers who have blown the whistle and suffered negative consequences mean others are reluctant to put their head above the parapet. Many decide to leave their post rather than blow the whistle, leading to a higher turnover of staff and recurring problems. One worker explained “Social workers aren’t whistleblowing because the systems don’t support them. We are supposed to be the voice of people that are marginalised but if we cannot find our own voice about concerns we have within the organisations that we work for, how can we be the voice for families and children?” (Hawser, 2012). Despite the existence of laws designed to protect those who speak out against malpractice whistleblowers still risk their careers by doing the right thing. On the one hand professionals are bound by their professional code of practice to protect service users, but on the other employers use the unspoken threat of personal and professional ruin to keep them quiet. If the most vulnerable in society are to be protected then listening to staff’s concerns should be a fundamental part of organisation. Pile stresses that all employers should publicly vow to protect whistleblowers from victimisation. “It should come from the top, from council leaders or the board of trustees, and it should be said on a regular basis,” she says, adding: “It’s about demonstrating to the workforce that employers understand the importance of people being able to raise concerns – and that they welcome it.” (Hawser, 2012).

Bibliography

• Ahmed, S (2014) Widespread sexual abuse in Rotherham has caused outrage – but little action @  accessed 25 January 2015.
• BBC News UK (2012) Jimmy Savile scandal: Inquiry begins into BBC culture @  accessed 18 January 2015.
• BBC News Sheffield and South Yorkshire (2014) Rotherham child abuse scandal: The background to the report @  accessed 25 January 2015.
• Cook, B (2012) Why an effective whistleblowing policy is important for charities The Guardian 14 November 2012.
• Hawser, A (2012) Social workers put off by high-profile whistleblowing cases @  accessed 27 January 2015.
• Hill, A (2012) Winterbourne View care home staff jailed for abusing residents @  accessed 25 January 2015.
• Mandelstam, M (2013) Safeguarding Adults and the Law 2nd Edition Jessica Kingsley Publishers.