Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing)

The original Code was approved by the University Court on 15 December 1997 and the following updated version was approved on 19 March 1999.

1. Introduction

The University 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 1998, which will come into effect on 1 January 1999, gives legal protection to employees against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of publicly disclosing certain serious concerns. It is a fundamental term of every contract of employment than 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 is believed to show malpractice or wrongdoing within the institution, then this information should be disclosed without fear of reprisal and may be made independently of line management.

It should be emphasised that this policy is intended to assist individuals who believe they have discovered malpractice or impropriety. It is not designed for the questioning of financial or business decisions taken by the institution; nor may it be used to reconsider any matters which have already been addressed under harassment, complaint or disciplinary procedures. Once it is in place, it is reasonable to expect members of the University to use it rather than to air their complaints outside the institution.

2. Scope of Policy

This policy is designed to allow employees or other members of the University to raise at a high level concerns or information which the individual believes show malpractice.

A number of policies and procedures are already in place including grievance and complaints; harassment, and discipline. This policy is intended to cover concerns which are in the public interest and may (at least initially) be investigated separately but might then lead to the invocation of such procedures. These might include:

* financial malpractice or impropriety or fraud.

* failure to comply with a legal obligation or with the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the University.

* dangers to health and safety or the environment.

* criminal activity.

* academic or professional malpractice.

* improper conduct or unethical behaviour.

* attempts to conceal any of the above.

3. Safeguards

3.1 Protection

This policy is designed to offer protection to those employees or other members of the University who disclose such concerns provided the disclosure is made:

i) in good faith, and

ii) in the reasonable belief of the individual making the disclosure that it tends to show malpractice.

The individual will be protected if the disclosure is made to an appropriate person/body (see section 4 below) or externally in conformity with the Act.

3.2 Confidentiality

The University 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.

3.3 Anonymous Allegations

This policy encourages individuals 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 University.

In exercising this discretion, the factors to be taken into account will include:

* the seriousness of the issues raised;

* the credibility of the concern; and

* the likelihood of confirming the allegation satisfactorily.

3.4 Untrue Allegations

If an individual makes an allegation in good faith, which is not confirmed by subsequent investigation, no action will be taken against that individual. If, however, an individual makes malicious or vexatious allegations, and particularly if he or she persists with making them, disciplinary action may be taken against the individual concerned.

4. Procedures for Making a Disclosure

4.1 Initial Steps

The individual should make the disclosure to the designated person, who would normally be the Secretary of the University who should immediately inform the Principal and Chairman of the University Court unless.

i) requested not to do so by the discloser

or

ii) the Chairman of the Court is likely to be involved at any subsequent appeal.

In cases involving financial malpractice, the Secretary of the University should act throughout in close consultation with the Principal, as the Accounting Officer for the University's public funding. If the disclosure is about the Secretary of the University, then the disclosure should be made to the Principal.

If the individual does not wish to raise the matter with either the Secretary or the Principal, then he or she may raise it with the Chairman of the Audit Committee if the issue falls within the purview of that Committee, or with the Chairman of the University Court.

Where a public interest disclosure raises concerns about the misuse of public funds, whatever the apparent scale, there will be a need to inform, at an early stage, the Funding Council, the Chairman of the University Court and the Chairman of the Audit Committee.

4.2 Process

The designated person will consider the information made available to him/her and decide on the form of investigation to be undertaken. Normally the designated person in taking this decision will take into account the views of at least one other officer. The decision 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 be satisfied that such a course of action is warranted, the possibility of double jeopardy notwithstanding.

Where the matter is to be the subject of an internal inquiry, the designated person will then consider how to conclude whether there is a prima facie case to answer. This consideration will include determining:

- who should undertake the investigation

- the procedure to be followed

- the scope of the concluding report.

4.3 Investigation

Normally the Internal Auditor or other independent officer of the University will undertake this investigation and will report his/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.

As a result of this investigation other internal procedures may be invoked, such as:

* disciplinary

* grievance or complaints

* harassment

or it might form the basis of a special investigation.

In some instances it might be necessary to refer the matter to an external authority for further investigation. In particular, in cases alleging misuse of public funds, the Funding Council's Accounting Officer and/or the National Audit Office may wish to undertake their own investigation.

4.4 Feedback

The designated person will inform the individual making the disclosure 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 of the University then the subsequent disclosure might be made to the Chairman of Audit Committee or Chairman of Court. 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 4.2 above.

The person or persons against whom a disclosure is made will be told of it, the evidence supporting it and will be allowed to comment before any investigation is concluded or further action commenced.

5. Reporting of Outcomes

A report of all disclosures 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 that Committee to monitor the effectiveness of the procedure. Where misuse of public funds is involved, the outcome will also be reported to the Funding Council.