Safeguarding Accountability in the UK: Whistleblowing as a Response to State Secrecy and Abuse of Power

Holden, Stephen (2025) Safeguarding Accountability in the UK: Whistleblowing as a Response to State Secrecy and Abuse of Power. Doctoral thesis (PhD), Manchester Metropolitan University.

Preview

Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (3MB) | Preview

Abstract

This thesis investigates the role of whistleblowing in safeguarding democratic principles against the potential abuses of state secrecy and overclassification of information. The core research question explores the effectiveness of whistleblowing as an instrument to mitigate the adverse effects that the misuse of secrecy may exert in a democratic environment. The analysis integrates legal, theoretical, and empirical perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between whistleblowing and state secrecy. The study begins by contextualizing whistleblowing within the framework of democratic legitimacy and the social contract, primarily through the lens of Rawlsian theory. It posits that for democratic systems to function effectively, there must be a balance between transparency and necessary secrecy. The thesis argues that transparency is essential for the electorate to make informed decisions and hold their government accountable. However, it acknowledges that some degree of secrecy is inevitable and sometimes justified for reasons such as national security and personal privacy. From the study, it emerged that the abuse of secrecy poses a significant risk, as it may be used to evade democratic scrutiny and shield decision-makers from accountability. In other words, secrecy inherently entails the risk of being weaponized, obstructing transparency, and undermining public trust. A detailed legal analysis reveals substantial deficiencies in the current UK whistleblowing legislation, particularly the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). The Act's stringent requirements and limited scope often fail to protect whistleblowers, especially those within government or dealing with matters of national security. The thesis argues for a reconceptualization of whistleblowing, proposing a new definition that encompasses a broader range of actors and disclosures. The empirical component of the research involved, inter alia, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to various government departments, revealing inconsistent and inadequate internal mechanisms for handling whistleblowing. The findings indicate a lack of standardised procedures, insufficient training for managers, and poor recording of whistleblowing data. These deficiencies undermine the effectiveness of internal disclosure channels and highlight the need for more robust external oversight mechanisms. The thesis also critically examines the government's rhetoric versus its actions concerning whistleblowing. While public statements often support the importance of whistleblowers, there is a consistent pattern of resisting meaningful legislative reforms and strengthening barriers to disclosure. This dissonance between rhetoric and reality suggests a systemic hostility towards whistleblowers and a preference for maintaining control over sensitive information. In conclusion, the thesis asserts that the current framework is insufficient to prevent abuses of state secrecy and protect whistleblowers. It calls for comprehensive reforms, including the establishment of an independent statutory commissioner and the introduction of a public interest defence for whistleblowers who step outside the strict boundaries of the law. These changes are essential to enhance transparency, accountability, and public trust in democratic institutions. The research contributes a unique perspective by integrating whistleblowing and state secrecy within a primarily legal context, providing valuable insights into safeguarding democracy in the modern era.