Whistleblowing is best understood by its official description: "The disclosure of information in the public interest." Those seeking so to expose the truth were supposed to receive the law's protection as long ago as 1998.

The Freedom to Speak Up Review led by Sir Robert Francis QC shows, graphically, that this is far from the case.

In one sense, we already knew as much. Sir Robert's inquiries into the Mid Staffordshire NHS scandal; the work of whistleblowers to uncover the truth about Hillsborough; the experiences of brave health professionals in Scotland and elsewhere: the Public Interest Disclosure Act has not done its job. It has failed those it was meant to protect. It has therefore failed the public.

Certain testimonies contained in Sir Robert's review, restricted to NHS England, are shocking enough in isolation. Six hundred witnesses - with a further 19,000 online contributions - have shown that the price too often paid by public-spirited individuals has involved bullying, ostracisation, and lives destroyed. Lip service from politicians, heard too often, is not enough.

Nor, it seems, are any number of bold institutional mission statements, confidential hotlines, official commitments to transparency, internal procedures, or even - as it transpires - an act of Parliament. Like Sir Robert, England's Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt spoke yesterday of the need for an improved "culture". Truly robust procedures might be better still. Prompt action from Mr Hunt (on a reserved matter) is required.

Politicians might meanwhile ask themselves about abuses of the word confidentiality, about "gagging" clauses, blacklisting, and "the special severance payments" too often available to public bodies. Above all, it is worth asking what can be done when a vengeful employer thinks an employment tribunal is a cost worth bearing in dealing with a whistleblower.

Dr Sukhomy Das can bear witness to that. Twice victorious in employment tribunals, the vindicated whistleblower was awarded £8,600 after his struggles with NHS Ayrshire and Arran. He then found himself left with legal costs in the region of £90,000. That's an absurd price to pay for being in the right. The fact the doctor has since been unable to find employment is also significant.

Sir Robert's calls for NHS "guardians" to support staff, for a scheme to aid those who find themselves out of a job after raising concerns, and for processes to guarantee that all such concerns are investigated properly, should be welcomed. Mr Hunt's commitment to ensure social care staff are covered by his promised legislation is also long overdue.

Sir Robert says, rightly, that raising concerns ought to be a normal part of working life. The consideration should apply to all employees, in every sector, public and private. As the HSBC scandal has reminded us, whistleblowing matters just as much in the world of banking as anywhere else. Wrongdoing and institutional failure, like negligence and inefficiency on a hospital ward, are no one's private business.

The Scottish government's reaction to the Freedom to Speak Up Review is meanwhile awaited with great interest.