Whistleblowing Policy

1. Introduction

The University of Central Lancashire (the “University”) is committed to its duty to conduct its affairs in a responsible and transparent way taking into account the requirements of funding bodies and regulators and the standards required in public life (See Committee on Standards in Public Life).

The University encourages the use of the Whistleblowing Policy (the “Policy”) when a member of the University discovers information which they genuinely believe shows evidence of malpractice, corruption, wrongdoing or any form of impropriety within the University. Disclosures should be made without fear of reprisal and may be made independently of line management.

This Policy forms part of the regulatory framework for the implementation of the University’s policy, procedures and regulations relating to bribery and corruption and compliance with the Bribery Act 2010. This Policy does not form part of any employee’s contract of employment and we may amend it at any time.

2. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides legal protection to employees against being dismissed or penalised by their employer as a result of making a “protected disclosure” i.e. disclosing information about malpractice where the employee reasonably believes the disclosure to be in the public interest.

Employees are defined by the Act to include employees of the University and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, casual workers, agency workers and self-employed workers.

This Policy is intended to cover genuine concerns regarding malpractice which are in the public interest. A number of policies and procedures are already in place to deal with concerns relating to an individual’s own personal circumstances, including the complaints, disciplinary and grievance procedures for matters that fall outside of this Policy.

This Policy is designed to offer protection to those employees, students and other members of the University who disclose such concerns provided the disclosure is made:

In the reasonable belief of the individual making the disclosure that the disclosure tends to show malpractice, is made in the public interest; and
To the relevant designated person (see section 4 (a)).

This Policy should encourage individuals to report suspected wrongdoing as soon as possible, in the knowledge that their concerns will be taken seriously and investigated appropriately.

Whistleblowing is the process by which an individual in an organisation raises concerns about possible unethical or illegal behaviour, misconduct or wrongdoing, fraud, crime, or other serious risk that could threaten students, staff, the public or the University’s own reputation. It also provides an appropriate method to allow a complaint to be investigated.

Types of concerns which are likely to fall under this Policy might include, but are not limited to, the following:

Impropriety or fraud;
Failure to comply with a legal obligation or with the rules and regulations of the University;
Dangers to health and safety or the environment;
Criminal activity;
Improper conduct or unethical behaviour;
Malpractice, including academic, financial, or any other malpractice;
Failure to declare interests/engaging in decisions when there is a conflict of interest;
Misuse of University funds;
Attempts to conceal any of the above.

This Policy is not designed to question academic judgements. If you are uncertain whether something is within the scope of this Policy, please contact the University Secretary and General Counsel, or if the issue relates to Academic judgements, the Vice-Chancellor.

The University encourages individuals who have significant concerns falling under the scope of this Policy to raise them internally by using the procedure set out below. The University will treat all such disclosures with the utmost sensitivity. This Policy encourages individuals to put their name to any disclosures they make.

However, the identity of a person making a disclosure under this Policy will be kept confidential, if requested, unless this is incompatible with a fair investigation or if there is an overriding reason for disclosure (e.g. if the matter is referred to an external body).

This Policy encourages individuals to put their name to any disclosures they make. Concerns expressed anonymously are much less powerful, but they may 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 from alternative credible sources.

This Policy protects members of the University who make disclosures in accordance with this Policy. Therefore, if an individual makes a disclosure in good faith, which is not confirmed by subsequent investigation, no action will be taken against that individual. If, however, an individual makes a malicious or vexatious disclosure and, particularly if he or she persists with making them, disciplinary action may be taken against the individual concerned.

4. Procedure for making a disclosure

Informal Disclosures

University employees are encouraged to make a disclosure to their Line Manager or Head of Service in first instance, however if they do not feel able to do this they may proceed to the formal route as outlined below.

The Line Manager/Head of Service will consider the disclosure and, where appropriate, will refer it to be dealt with under the formal disclosures process below. If the individual making the disclosure is unhappy with the response from the Line Manager/Head of Service s/he may raise the matter through the formal disclosures process as outlined below.

All disclosures should be made in writing to the University Secretary and General Counsel as the Clerk to the University Board as the designated person. If the individual does not wish to raise the matter with the University Secretary and General Counsel, then they may raise it with the Chair of the Resources Committee.

Disclosures relating to the Vice-Chancellor, the Chair of the University Board, the Clerk to the University Board or the Chair of the Resources Committee will follow the same steps as a standard disclosure, but will be processed through the routes detailed in Table A below.

Scroll or swipe on small screens to see all table columns

Table A
Disclosures Relating to:	Person to whom disclosure should be made	Designation for decision regarding investigation	Recommendations provided to for final decision
Vice-Chancellor	Chair of the University Board and Chair of the Resources Committee	Chair of the University Board	University Board (Excluding the Vice-Chancellor)
Chair of the University Board	Chair of the Resources Committee	Chair of the Resources Committee	University Board (Excluding the Chair)
Clerk to the University Board or Chair of the Resources Committee	Chair of the University Board	Chair of the University Board	University Board (Excluding the Chair of Resources, as appropriate)

Disclosures relating to financial malpractice or impropriety or fraud can be made via the above procedure or alternatively through the Fraud Response Plan’s process for reporting suspected fraud.

Following the initial disclosure, the discloser will be asked to provide as much information and supporting evidence as possible about the disclosure and the grounds for the belief of malpractice.

Subject to where a disclosure relates to any individual(s) specified in Table A, the designated person will (seeking advice from any individual(s) set out in Table A, as appropriate) determine whether there is a prima facie case, whether there will be an investigation, its terms of reference and timescale, and will nominate a person or persons to conduct the investigation. Investigations will not be carried out by the person who will have to reach a decision on the matter. Where a disclosure relates to any individual(s) specified in Table A, the University shall follow the process in Table A.

Where a decision is made not to refer the disclosure for investigation, the discloser shall have the right to request a review of the decision in accordance with paragraph (f) below.

The person or persons tasked to investigate the disclosure will carry out a full investigation with the support of expertise and specialist advice as required. Any investigation will be conducted as sensitively and speedily as possible and within the terms of reference and timetables set.

The nature of investigation will depend on the matter raised and may be referred to an external body such as the police.

It may become clear during an investigation that the issues raised do not fall within the scope of this Policy and ought to be referred to another procedure.

The University will not investigate the same disclosure through multiple routes. For example, if an issue has been raised and dealt with through the operation of this or another University procedure that will be deemed to be final. Continued making of allegations or disclosures once they have been properly dealt with within the University’s procedures will be regarded as malicious.

The discloser will be kept updated throughout the process about the stage the investigation has reached and when an outcome is expected. At the end of the process, the designated person will inform the discloser in writing of what action, if any, is to be taken, to the extent that the University is able. If no action is to be taken, then the individual concerned should be informed of the reason for this.

If at the stage of initial disclosure it is decided that there is not a prima facie case or that the matter should be dealt with through another University procedure, the discloser shall be informed and given the opportunity to refer the matter in writing to the Chair of the Resources Committee or if the disclosure has been made to the Chair of the Resources Committee the appeal shall be to the Chair of the University

Board, with the exception of any appeals to disclosures relating to the Chair of the University Board, such appeals shall be heard by the Governance, Risk and Nominations Committee (excluding the Chair of the University Board).

Where a disclosure has been investigated and found not proven, the person making the disclosure may raise it with the Chair of the Resources Committee or if the investigation has been carried out by the Chair of the Resources Committee the appeal shall be to the Chair of the University Board, with the exception of any appeals to disclosures relating to the Chair of the University Board, such appeals shall be heard by the Governance, Risk and Nominations Committee (excluding the Chair of the University Board).

A review of the case will be undertaken, the results of which will be communicated in writing to the person making the disclosure.

The Clerk to the University Board will maintain an anonymous register of all confirmed Public Interest Disclosure cases which are investigated within the University. This register will be available for external inspection and should include the following information:

The date the disclosure was made;
The type of allegation made;
The potential risks to the University; and
The status of the investigation.

In all cases a report of the outcomes of any investigation will be made to the Resources Committee. An annual report will also be made to the Resources Committee on the disclosures made during the academic year.

Whilst it is hoped that the Policy outlined in this document would reassure and encourage members of the University sufficiently to make a disclosure internally, the discloser may also raise the matter externally, as set out in the paragraph above, if the discloser has reasonable grounds for believing that they will be subjected to a detriment as a result of making the disclosure, or that all persons that would receive the disclosure are or were involved in the alleged malpractice.

The discloser may at any time disclose the matter on a confidential basis to a professionally qualified lawyer for the purpose of taking legal advice.

Disciplinary action may be taken where an external disclosure is made in breach of this Policy, without reasonable grounds.

6. Independent Advice

Disclosers may wish to seek independent advice before submitting a formal public interest disclosure to an external body. Protect is one of a number of organisations which offer free advice.

7. Review and Amendment

This Policy will be reviewed and amended as necessary by the Resources Committee on behalf of the University Board from time to time.

Your saved courses

Whistleblowing Policy

1. Introduction

2. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

3. Scope of this policy

4. Procedure for making a disclosure

Informal Disclosures

Formal disclosures

5. External Disclosures

6. Independent Advice

7. Review and Amendment

Whistleblowing Policy

1. Introduction

2. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

3. Scope of this policy

(a) Purpose

(b) Who the Policy Applies to

(c) What Disclosures are Covered by the Policy?

(d) Confidentiality

(e) Anonymous Disclosures

(f) Protection from Detriment

(g) Untrue/Unsubstantiated Disclosures

4. Procedure for making a disclosure

Informal Disclosures

Formal disclosures

(a) Initial Disclosure

(b) Process

(c) Investigation

(d) Outcome of an Investigation

(e) Feedback

(f) Appeal

(g) Monitoring of Disclosures

5. External Disclosures

(a) Following an Internal Disclosure

(b) Prior to an Internal Disclosure

6. Independent Advice

7. Review and Amendment