The conclusion of the Lucy Letby trial this month, and its aftermath, have left me pondering the experience of whistle-blowers. My career for the past 22 years has been in improving outcomes for vulnerable young people, the last 12 years in the fields of SEND and safeguarding; these are disciplines where the importance of robust and well-implemented whistleblowing policies is crucial. Ofsted refer to safeguarding as the ‘golden thread’ in inspecting provision. Inspectors pore over published policies, including whistleblowing, the night before arriving at the school – and it’s absolutely right that they do – because any deficiencies can make the difference between safe and unsafe culture and practice.
What I’ve discovered – and what the situation at the Countess of Cheshire Hospital bears out – is that a whistleblowing policy, however rigorously written and however earnestly trusted on the ground, can be rendered useless without integrity of leadership in those called upon to implement its provisions, and without well-resourced external oversight when internal policies fail.
A policy needs to have effective contingencies for when a whistle-blower reports a senior person, or member of the governing board; it needs structured governance where members of the governing body are not so closely aligned with each other that they are afraid to risk relationships. It also needs individuals in positions of power who have the integrity to put aside professional and business interests and personal loyalties to ensure that whistleblowing is effective in their organisation; they should be able to recognise that they must recuse themselves from the process if this is not possible for them.
In the course of my career I’ve had several brushes with whistleblowing policies, as a leader in the organisation, managing the process when a colleague raised concerns about the conduct of other staff members, and as the professional raising concerns. It’s not an easy process for anyone involved, it leaves painful wounds for the participants and the wider organisational community. When the internal whistleblowing policy lacks the necessary remedy over concerns raised about the executive and the governing group in an organisation, it’s essential that effective mechanisms exist and are implemented by the relevant regulating body.
I have always found Ofsted inspectors to be fair and professional, but I know, from recent conversations with whistle-blowers in education, that there is a worrying lack of capacity in Ofsted when it comes to addressing staff concerns about governance in schools, both maintained and non-maintained. Time after time whistle-blowers using the DfE’s portal. ‘Make a complaint about a school’ are met with many weeks of silence, followed by a form email suggesting that as employees they should use internal processes. If you are complaining about a private school the DfE/Ofsted have no role and whistle-blowers must approach their local authority. Thresholds used by LADOs do not allow them to become involved in complaints about governing boards, unless there is direct harm to a child. I am aware of cases where children have sustained significant harm as a result of decision making by a governing board, and neither Ofsted, the DfE nor the local authority showed any interest in asking questions at the school. Meanwhile whistle-blowers have been suspended or have resigned because of the treatment they receive in the workplace for a perceived lack of corporate loyalty.
Policies must be robust and must allow for the possibility of complaints against governors, even policy templates from reputable providers don’t always recognise this. Leaders and governors must have the integrity to uphold policies, perhaps especially when it’s difficult for them. There must be checks and balances to ensure that leaders, paid and unpaid, disregard prejudice, personal relationships and other interests to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those the organisation serves. Beyond this, there needs to be well-resourced outside regulation so that, when all else fails, whistle-blowers can trust that their concerns will be taken seriously. Organisations serving vulnerable people will never be safe without these fundamentals.
