The institution is committed to the highest standards of openness, probity and accountability. It seeks to conduct its affairs in a responsible manner taking into account the requirements of the funding bodies and the standards in public life set out in the reports of the Nolan Committee.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which came into effect on 1 January 1999, gives legal protection to employees against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of publicity disclosing certain serious concerns. It is a fundamental term of every contract of employment that an employee will faithfully serve his or her employer and not disclose confidential information about the employer's affairs. However, where an individual discovers information which they believe shows malpractice or wrongdoing within the organisation then this information should be disclosed without fear of reprisal, and may be made independently of line management. In view of the Council's overall responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of the institution, its members are expected, similarly, to disclose their concern if they have good grounds for believing that malpractice or impropriety has occurred.
It should be emphasised that this policy is intended to assist individuals who believe they have discovered malpractice of impropriety. It is not designed to question financial or business decisions taken by the institution; nor may it be used to reconsider any matters which have already been addressed under harassment, grievance or disciplinary procedures. It is reasonable to expect members of the institution to use the procedures set out in this policy rather than air their complains outside the institution.
The institution will treat all such disclosures in a confidential and sensitive manner. The identity of the individual making the allegation may be kept confidential so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. However, the investigation process may reveal the source of the information and the individual making the disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required.
Individuals are encouraged to put their name to any disclosures they make. Concerns expressed anonymously are much less powerful, but they will be considered at the discretion of the institution. In exercising this discretion, the factors to be taken into account will include:
the seriousness of the issues raised;
credibility of the concern; and
the likelihood of confirming the allegation from alternative credible sources.
Procedure
The individual member should make the disclosure in person and/or in writing to the designated person, normally the Registrar and Secretary, who will immediately inform the Vice-Chancellor and Principal.
In cases involving financial malpractice, the Registrar and Secretary should act throughout in close consultation with the Vice-Chancellor and Principal, as the Accounting Officer for the institution's public funding.
If the disclosure is about the Registrar and Secretary then the disclosure should be made directly to the Vice-Chancellor and Principal. if the disclosure is about the Vice-Chancellor and Principal, the Registrar and Secretary will immediately inform the President.
If the member does not wish to raise the matter with either the Registrar and Secretary or the Vice-Chancellor and Principal, he or she may then raise it with the Chair of the Audit Committee or directly with the President of the institution.
Process
The designated person will consider the information made available to him or her and decide on the form of the investigation to be undertaken. This may be
to investigate the matter internally
to refer the matter to the Police
to call for an independent inquiry
If the decision is that investigations should be conducted by more than one of these means, the designated person should satisfy him/herself that such a course of action is warranted, the possibility of double jeopardy notwithstanding.
Investigation
Normally, the Internal Auditor or other independent officer of the institution will undertake this investigation and will report his or her findings to the designated person. Investigations should not be carried out by the person who will have to reach a decision on the matter. Any investigation will be conducted as sensitively and speedily as possible.
Feedback
The designated person will inform the individual making the disclosure of what action, if any, is to be taken. If no action is to be taken then the individual concerned should be informed of the reason for this and allowed the opportunity to remake the disclosure to another appropriate person. For example, if the initial disclosure was made to an officer who is a member of staff of the institution, then the subsequent disclosure might be made to the Chair of the Audit Committee or to the President. This other person will consider all the information presented, the procedures that were followed and the reasons for not taking any further action. The outcome of this will be either to confirm that no further action is required or that further investigation is required and will follow the procedures referred to in paragraph 7 above.
Where a disclosure is made, the person or persons against whom the disclosure is made will be told if it, the evidence supporting it, and will be allowed to comment before any investigation, or further action, is concluded.
Reporting of Outcomes
A report of all disclosure and any subsequent actions taken will be made by the designated person who will retain such reports for a specified period of time (e.g. three years). In all cases a report of the outcomes of any investigation will be made to the Audit Committee in detail where the issue falls within its purview, and in summary in other cases as a means of allowing the Committee to monitor the effectiveness of the procedure.