Influenced by various financial scandals and accidents, along with the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the bill was introduced to Parliament by Richard Shepherd and given government support, on the condition that it become an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996.

It protects employees who make disclosures of certain types of information, including evidence of illegal activity or damage to the environment, from retribution from their employers, such as dismissal or being passed over for promotion.

[1][2] In 2019 a consultation was held on adding limitations on confidentiality clauses, following evidence that some employers used confidentiality clauses to intimidate victims of harassment or discrimination into silence, suggesting that the worker did not have the right to blow the whistle, take a matter to a tribunal, or even discuss with people such as the police, a doctor, or a therapist.

Although they could avoid being sued for breach of confidence thanks to a public interest defence, that did not prevent subtle or open victimisation in the workplace, including disciplinary action, dismissal,[3] failure to gain promotion or a pay rise.

[6] In 1995 and 1996, two private member's bills dealing with whistleblowers were introduced to Parliament, by Tony Wright and Don Touhig respectively, but both efforts fell through.

[7] Public Concern at Work, a UK-based whistleblowers charity, was involved in the drafting and consultation stages of the bill.

[9] The Public Interest Disclosure Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Shepherd in 1997, and given its second reading on 12 December before being sent to a committee.

[16] The list of "prescribed persons" is found in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 1999,[17] and includes only official bodies; the Health and Safety Executive, the Data Protection Registrar, the Certification Officer, the Environment Agency and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

An employee will be protected if he "makes a disclosure in good faith" to one of these people, and "reasonably believes that the relevant failure...is a matter in respect of which the person is prescribed and the information is substantially true".