The world needs its whistleblowers. They are indispensable to a healthy society. The employee who, in the public interest, has the independence of judgment and the personal courage to challenge malpractice or illegality is a kind of public hero. Yet, as Sir Robert Francis reported on Wednesday , in the NHS as in any large and bureaucratic organisation, whistleblowers are far more likely to be resented than respected, as Helene Donnelly, the nurse who protested about the failings in care at Mid Staffs, found out. Far from having their names embossed on a roll of honour, Francis found that the doctors and nurses and other NHS staff who reported their anxieties about failings in patient care had been shunned, suspended or even sacked by hospital bosses. Many were left struggling to find a new job. Some have been driven to contemplate suicide.

Their experience is hardly unusual. There is a pantheon of men and women who at great personal risk have, in the public interest, revealed information their employers wanted to keep secret. Some of the names are familiar, people like Mordechai Vanunu, the scientist who revealed Israel’s nuclear programme, or Daniel Ellsberg, who by leaking the Pentagon papers exposed US lies about Vietnam, or Clive Ponting, the Ministry of Defence official who exposed Margaret Thatcher’s prevarication over the sinking of the General Belgrano. They are heroes of the analogue age. The advent of the web has increased transparency and fostered an equal urge for secrecy: hence Edward Snowden, who exposed the NSA’s vast and unauthorised surveillance programmes, and Hervé Falciani, who downloaded the details of the fortunes lost in unpaid tax through schemes facilitated by his employer, HSBC.

Lack of support for whistleblowers is a disgrace | Letters Read more

From their value to society, it follows that whistleblowers deserve protection in law. That much is easy. The harder part lies in framing it. Britain’s Public Interest Disclosure Act, passed by the Labour government in 1998, has been regarded as a model, not least because it covers all employees whether in the public or private sector. But as part of the legal apparatus of employment protection, it can also be complex and inaccessible, and it is adjudicated through employment tribunals on which charges are now levied. By contrast, in the US, whistleblowers are entitled to a percentage of any savings resulting from their actions. That would rightly be seen as too transactional for Britain, where whistleblowing is seen as an aspect of good citizenship. Yet the costs of whistleblowing can far outweigh the benefit it ultimately brings to wider society.

Francis backs off big changes to the law. Instead, he makes modest proposals to outlaw discrimination not only against those who keep their jobs but also those who quit after whistleblowing and find their search for work elsewhere mysteriously stymied by absent references or job offers withdrawn at the last minute. This will be a valuable change, but it is still a matter only of redress. It cannot prevent the harm in the first place, and it provides scant comfort for either the whistleblower themselves, or others who might also see the need to raise complaints in the public interest. Francis argues that it is the culture that has to change to make the NHS a more open and responsive organisation. But his proposals risk being too complex to be properly effective. The legislation that is now likely to come in before the election with cross-party support should include a mandatory review to make sure it does the job.

In some ways, public interest concerns in the NHS are straightforward. If on the one hand a health worker is concerned about what they believe is an issue of patient safety, and the management rejects it on the basis of, say, staffing implications, the balance is not hard to strike. Nor is it hard to choose between a researcher who realises a new drug on trial is causing harm rather than doing good, and the pharmaceutical company that insists it’s a success. But where national security is involved, the assessment of the public interest is a harder call with higher stakes. There is a gulf of difference between the information anarchist and the deliberate and measured decision to expose conduct that is illegal or unconstitutional. Whistleblowers cannot invariably assume a blank cheque, but they are always entitled to due process.

• This article was amended on 12 February 2015 to change “Richard Francis” to Robert Francis.