Cambridgeshire County Council is seeing a rise in whistleblowing referrals as fraud risks grow across the authority. Following his original report, John Elworthy spoke with Chief Executive Stephen Moir about the cultural and governance changes driving this shift
In an extended interview, chief executive Stephen Moir acknowledged that whistleblowing procedures were not always effective in practice.
“When I arrived in 2022, the policy itself existed and said all the right things — but nobody used it because they didn’t have confidence in it,” he said.
“The issue wasn’t the policy; it was the culture.”
“I’m mindful you’re interested in issues of conduct and whistleblowing and financial potential irregularities.
“I thought might be helpful to give you a sense of how we deal with some of that and frankly some of the improvements we’ve seen over the last four years.
“If I take us right back to when I started obviously I just inherited the delights of ‘farm gate’ and you’ll remember I think our very first interview was very much about me saying I’m going to stamp out bullying and harassment and help make people in the organisation feel safe.
He added: “So, four years on I would say to you it’s actually the number of whistleblowing concerns that are, in my view, the sign of a healthy organisation the sign of an organisation where staff feel safe to speak up to race concerns know they’re going to be dealt with properly.
“And more importantly know that they’re not going to have any knock on consequences or feel victimised or harassed for doing that. Actually, it’s about creating the right environment.”
“We know that people feel safe and actually almost I think the last time I saw it was around 85 percent of staff have not experienced any form of bullying discrimination or unfair treatment.
“And even the small proportion of those that have raised concerns feel they’ve been dealt with properly. Now that’s obviously different to whistleblowing but it was just a context to say the organisation I inherited to the one I lead now is a very different place. Staff feel very differently about it.”
Whistleblowers sound the alarm as Cambridgeshire County Council audit uncovers growing fraud risks
Under revised arrangements, all whistleblowing concerns now go directly to the council’s internal audit team, operating independently and where cases are triaged and either investigated or referred through appropriate formal procedures, such as HR or conduct frameworks.
Confidentiality, Moir emphasised, is fundamental.
“People needed to believe that if they raised concerns they would be taken seriously, treated confidentially, and protected.”
The council has benchmarked its approach against national best practice with Protect, a specialist whistleblowing standards organisation, leading to expanded staff training and awareness programmes.
Whistleblowing — increasingly framed internally as “speaking up” — is now included in essential learning for all staff and introduced during employee induction.
Moir himself acts as the council’s named whistleblowing champion, a symbolic move intended to demonstrate senior accountability.
“It’s important staff see that this sits right at the top of the organisation,” he said.
When more reports mean healthier governance
At first glance, rising whistleblowing figures might appear alarming. In governance terms, however, they can indicate improvement rather than deterioration.
“The number of concerns raised is actually a sign of a healthy organisation,” Moir said. “It shows staff feel safe speaking up.”
Workforce survey results appear to support that interpretation. Around 85 per cent of staff reported no experience of bullying, discrimination or unfair treatment, while a strong majority said they felt able to raise concerns safely.
Compared with the environment described in earlier external reviews of the council, Moir argues the organisation has undergone significant cultural change.
Responsibility for safeguarding standards is no longer confined to auditors or senior managers.
“All 4,700 employees share accountability for protecting public money and maintaining standards,” he said. “That collective ownership is probably the biggest cultural shift since 2022.”
Governance reforms behind the scenes
The interview also sheds light on structural reforms that form the backdrop to the audit findings.
A Local Government Association review prior to Moir’s arrival highlighted blurred boundaries between councillors and senior officers — a recurring governance issue across English local authorities.
The council has since embedded statutory officer responsibilities, including those of the chief finance officer and monitoring officer, directly into its constitution, the publicly accessible framework governing council operations.
Following elections, councillors now undergo structured induction programmes covering governance, conduct expectations and reporting mechanisms.
Audit report raises questions over Fenland councillors’ declarations of interest
“If necessary, we will intervene in political matters where governance or conduct issues arise,” Moir said. “Our responsibility is to protect the council as an organisation — its residents, staff and councillors alike.”
Such clarity matters because whistleblowing systems depend on trust that concerns will be handled impartially, regardless of seniority or political sensitivity.
The ‘fourth line of defence’
The audit report’s catalogue of fraud risks reflects a wider transformation in public sector threat landscapes.
Cyber-enabled scams, social engineering and identity manipulation increasingly target councils precisely because they administer large volumes of payments and sensitive data.
Moir describes the council’s safeguards as layered protection.
The first line of defence lies with frontline services delivering council functions. The second involves corporate teams such as finance and HR. The third consists of internal audit and external regulators.
“And then I describe whistleblowers as the fourth line of defence,” he said — an additional safeguard reinforcing all others.
Audit row erupts as Conservatives block further scrutiny of error-hit East Cambs Council accounts
Recent cases appear to support that characterisation. Staff vigilance prevented losses in several attempted frauds, demonstrating how awareness and culture can translate directly into financial protection.
Even low-value refund requests flagged as potential money-laundering risks showed how routine transactions can become early warning signals when staff feel empowered to question anomalies.
Accountability — and its limits
Not all whistleblowing cases result in disciplinary outcomes, and employment law restricts what councils can publicly disclose.
Moir acknowledged the tension between transparency and confidentiality.
“When investigations lead to outcomes — for example, someone leaving the organisation — we communicate appropriately,” he said. “People generally know when processes are working, even if details must remain confidential.”
The audit report reflects this reality. Some referrals lacked sufficient information to pursue and were closed without investigation, while others led to governance improvements rather than findings of wrongdoing.
One conflict-of-interest case, for example, resulted in strengthened declaration procedures despite no misconduct being identified.
Such outcomes highlight an often-overlooked function of whistleblowing: prevention rather than punishment.
Pressure on audit teams
The surge in referrals has inevitably increased workload pressures on the internal audit service — an issue explicitly acknowledged in the audit report.
Audit disclaimer for CPCA tied to national backlog, not local financial failings
Moir accepts the strain but argues the burden is now shared more widely across the organisation.
“It doesn’t make their job easier — the workload is still significant — but they feel better supported,” he said.
Training programmes now aim to help staff distinguish between complaints, grievances and whistleblowing disclosures, ensuring cases are directed appropriately and investigative resources used effectively.
Local government under strain
The broader context is a sector navigating financial pressure, technological risk and structural change.
Cambridgeshire’s participation in the Cabinet Office’s National Fraud Initiative has already identified more than £27,000 in recoverable funds and led to hundreds of blue badge cancellations, producing substantial notional savings.
Meanwhile, local government reorganisation remains on the horizon, creating uncertainty for staff and leadership alike.
“Simplification — where residents clearly know which council delivers which services — can be positive,” Moir said, while stressing that maintaining morale and service delivery during transition remains the immediate priority.
Culture as infrastructure
Perhaps the most striking lesson from the council’s experience is that whistleblowing systems function less as policies than as organisational infrastructure.
The audit report documents risks, investigations and overdue actions. The interview provides context: leadership attention, governance reform and cultural change designed to make reporting concerns routine rather than exceptional.
The increase in whistleblowing referrals therefore carries two interpretations simultaneously.
It signals rising exposure to fraud risks — a reality faced across public services — but also suggests growing internal confidence that concerns will be heard.
For local authorities managing billions in public funds, that distinction matters.
Fraud prevention no longer depends solely on auditors detecting problems after the event. Increasingly, it relies on employees willing to question irregularities at the moment they occur.
As Moir puts it, whistleblowers are not an organisational failure but an essential safeguard — the fourth line of defence protecting public resources.
Whether that cultural shift proves durable will become clearer in future audit cycles. For now, the evidence suggests Cambridgeshire County Council’s greatest change may not lie in new policies or procedures, but in something less visible: the willingness of staff to speak up — and the confidence that someone will listen.
The best — and worst — parts of the job
I asked Moir what, after four years, does he consider the best part of his role?
On the best, he replied: “The people. Across libraries, public health, social care — the small stories matter most. Staff constantly go above and beyond to help residents, often in ways the public never sees. That’s what makes the job special.”
And the worst?
“Endless meetings! Many are necessary, but I spend a lot of time discussing the same issues with different government departments. Greater coordination would make life easier for councils and ultimately improve services for residents.”
Local government reorganisation
And his thoughts on local government reorganisation?
He said: “Ultimately it’s a government decision. But simplification — where residents clearly know which council delivers which services — can be a positive outcome.
“Our focus right now is maintaining services while preparing for change. Staff need reassurance that their roles remain secure. Most people will still be doing the same job, even if structures or branding change.
“My priority is keeping morale strong, communicating openly, and ensuring we continue delivering for residents throughout the transition.”
