"Why should the size of the asset base of a firm determine whether a whistleblowing policy exists or not?"
The CISI says it 'broadly welcomes' the FCA Consultation Paper which proposes to extend whistleblowing rules to UK branches of overseas banks, but has raised some concerns.
Although the FCA has proposed to “inform UK-based employees of UK branches of overseas banks” of the FCA and PRA whistleblowing services, the CISI believes the FCA could do more than merely 'inform' employees. The CISI suggests a requirement on the banks concerned to train staff on the legislative protection (if any) which is available in their home countries, should they choose to blow the whistle.
The aim of this additional requirement, says the CISI, would be to provide further guidance for employees “who may have little or no information about the whistleblowing law and/or regulation in their home country”.
The CISI has also raised concerns that individuals may blow the whistle within firms about an issue which is not currently classed as protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and therefore find themselves without the protection of the law.
As a result it is urging the regulator to require firms to make it clear to staff which types of disclosures are/are not covered under PIDA and what protection will be afforded to them if they choose to blow the whistle regarding an issue which falls outside a protected disclosure.
Simon Culhane, Chartered FCSI and CISI CEO said: “We have always maintained that whistleblowing is a last resort and that it should form part of a “speak up” culture within firms.
“However the whistleblowing rules introduced by the FCA in October 2015 stipulate that the rules would only apply to a narrow base composed of UK based deposit takers with assets greater than £250m. This current PRA/FCA Consultation Paper on whistleblowing in UK branches of overseas banks does not propose any changes in that rule. Why don’t these whistleblowing principles apply to all firms regulated by the PRA/FCA? Why should the size of the asset base of a firm determine whether a whistleblowing policy exists or not?
“We also suggested, when the rules were published in 2015, that a protection fund be introduced, which would pay a whistleblower’s salary, if he or she lost their job because they spoke up. This could be for up to six months or, if shorter, the time it took for the individual’s case to be resolved at an employment tribunal. We maintain this could be a valuable safety net for those who wish to speak up, but who are concerned about suffering financially as a result.”
