Whistleblowing and malpractice

As the means of discovering malpractice depends upon it being reported the basis of the policy lies in creating an environment where individuals feel sufficiently confident to take such a step.

LSP Whistleblowing Policy

Introduction

1. The Nolan Committee’s Second Report on Standards in Public Life recommended that a procedure should be put in place which would enable concerns to be raised confidentially inside and, if necessary, outside an organisation, about malpractice. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was subsequently introduced to provide protection to workers who raise reasonable concerns in the workplace.


2. Members of staff or students are often the first to realise that there may be something seriously wrong within an institution that should be known in the public interest. However, they may not express their concerns because they feel that speaking up would be disloyal to their colleagues or to their employer. They may also fear harassment or victimisation. In these circumstances, it may be easier to ignore the concern rather than report what may just be a suspicion of malpractice. Similarly students may become aware of activities or practices which they believe are not in the interests of the London School of Puppetry.


3. LSP subscribes to the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It encourages members of staff and students to raise genuine concerns about malpractice at the earliest practicable stage rather than wait for proof.The following procedure is intended to provide safeguards to enable anyone to raise concerns about malpractice in connection with LSP. The aim is to provide a rapid mechanism under which genuine concerns can be raised internally and, if necessary, externally without fear of adverse repercussions to the individual. It is also intended to promote a culture of openness and a shared sense of integrity by inviting all staff and students to act responsibly in order to uphold the reputation of LSP and maintain public confidence.


4. The Whistle blowing procedure in not meant to be an alternative mechanism for students to raise individual grievances about personal issues. The Appeals and Complaints procedure is already in place to deal with such matters.


5. Definition of Whistleblowing There is no legal definition of ‘Whistleblowing’ either within European Community Law or UK Law. At LSP the term ‘Whistleblowing’ is used when a current or former tutor or current or former student raises internally or publicly discloses problems within the organisation. Such problems can in general can include fraud and financial irregularities, serious maladministration and dangerous acts or omissions which create a risk to health, safety or the environment.. It does not include mismanagement, which may arise from, for example, weak management rather than malpractice.


6. Examples of Malpractice As ‘malpractice’ is not easily defined the following are examples only and the list is not deemed to be exhaustive. It is the right of the individual raising the concern to interpret their definition of what he/she considers to be malpractice:
   1. disruption of, or improper interference with, the academic, administrative, or artistic endeavours of LSP.
   2. obstruction of, or improper interference with, the functions, duties or activities of any student, tutor or any authorised visitor to LSP.
   3. violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behaviour or language whilst in class or engaged in any LSP activity, including that committed by electronic means using email.
   4. fraud, deceit, deception or dishonesty in relation to LSP, tutors, or in connection with holding any office or in relation to being a student of LSP.
   5. action likely to cause injury or impair safety either in class or on any other sites associated with LSP work-based learning.
   6. defacement of, or deliberate damage to, any property of a tutor, or any property of a student, or that on loan to LSP (including damage resulting from negligence).
   7. acts of disturbance that threaten the rights and privacy of any member of LSP whilst in class or engaged in work-based activity on another site, or to local residents in Highbury or Grassington.
   8. harassment of any kind, including sexual or racial harassment of any student, member of staff or tutor or any authorised visitor to LSP, including that committed by electronic or other remote means.
   9. acts of disturbance, negligence or breaches of health and safety measures which might threaten the safety, security or welfare of other local residents in Grassington, Highbury, work-based learning sites, or in class.
   10. unfounded and malicious complaints brought against tutors or staff
   11. possession or misuse of drugs (including cannabis) which constitutes an offence at law
   
   Note: Where a student is deemed to be in a state of mind or health which is perceived to pose a threat, affect the welfare of staff and/or students, or is disruptive of the learning and teaching process, LSP reserves the right to refer the student for a health assessment before any recommencement of study can be considered.


7. The Public Interest Disclosure Act gives protection for workers against detriment or dismissal for raising concerns about matters in the public interest. The Act seeks to ensure that any person suspecting malpractice knows how to raise concerns and what procedures are in place to deal with such concerns. It protects disclosure if an employee can show one of the following:
   • That a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed.
   • That a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he/she is subject.
   • That a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.
   • That the health or safety or any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered.
   • There must be indicated a greater danger than is associated with the normal operation or use of the process/product, or a danger that is not normally associated with it.
   • That the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged.
   • That information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the above has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.


8. Management and staff should be aware that victimising tutors or students, or deterring them from raising a concern about malpractice is also viewed as a serious disciplinary offence, which may also expose LSP to a claim for compensation and will be dealt with in the same manner.


9. Respecting ConfidentialityAny tutor or student who follows the official procedure to report a concern of malpractice will have the matter treated confidentially and will not have his/her name disclosed to the alleged perpetrator of malpractice without the complainant’s prior approval.


10. Raising a Concern of Malpractice
    1. A tutor or student (the Discloser) may raise a concern of alleged malpractice orally or in writing to a member of the Committee or the Academic Board.
    2. The person to whom the concern is presented is not to adjudicate on the matter in any way. He/she is required to act in a professional manner and:remember there are two sides to every concern.
    3. Listen carefully to the concern, taking full notes as appropriate to record an oral concern or to amplify any specific points of a written concern.
    4. Request and heed legitimate concerns about the tutor or student's own safety or career.
    5. Advise the Discloser that the matter will be treated seriously, that it will be forwarded for investigation and that the outcome will be reported back to him/her as soon as possible after the investigation has been completed.
    The person to whom the concern is expressed must forward it to the Designated Officer within 24 hours and is responsible for ensuring strict confidentiality on the subject. Any breach of confidentiality will be treated as a serious disciplinary matter if the person receiving notice of the concern is found to have been responsible for such a breach.
    6. Misuse of Whistleblowing ProcedureShould a tutor or student raise a concern under this procedure which is subsequently found to be a deliberately false and malicious accusation this will be viewed as a serious disciplinary matter and dealt with under LSP Disciplinary Procedure.


11. Designated Officer (DO)

    Initial Assessment

    On receipt of disclosure of a concern the DO will offer to meet the Discloser, in confidence, within seven working days or immediately if there is any danger of loss of life or serious injury. The purpose of the meeting will be for the DO to obtain as much information as possible about the ground for the Discloser’s belief that malpractice has occurred or is likely to occur.

    The Discloser may be accompanied by a Trade Union representative, work colleague or friend at the meeting. If the accompanying person is a legal adviser, this should be made known to the DO in advance. The DO will be accompanied by a note-taker; these notes will not identify the Discloser. Disclosure under this procedure shall, wherever possible, be in writing but, if this is not practicable, such disclosure may be oral, at the choice of the Discloser. The Discloser should provide as much supporting written evidence as possible about the disclosure and the grounds for concern about malpractice. At all times and in all circumstances the identity of the Discloser will be kept secret by the DO.

    After considering the information obtained at the initial meeting the DO will, within five working days or immediately if there is any perceived danger of loss of life or serious injury, agree with the Discloser to whom to refer a summary of the information obtained at the meeting. The summary will include recommendations as to action to be taken in response to the disclosure and will normally be referred to the LSP committee unless it is alleged that he/she is involved in any malpractice or there are other valid reasons for not doing so. In such cases the summary will be passed to the regulatory authority.

    The recommendations in the summary may include one or more of the following:
    • That the matter should be investigated internally using appropriate management.
    • That a member of staff or student should be given the opportunity to seek redress through through the Complaints Procedure.
    • That the matter should be reported to the regulatory authority.
    • That the matter should be reported to the police.
    • That no further action should be taken.


12. The grounds on which the DO could legitimately recommend no further action by the College include the following:
    • That the DO is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, there is no evidence of malpractice.
    • That the DO believes that the Discloser is not acting in good faith.
    • That the matter is already (or has been) the subject of proceedings under one of the NPA’s or a Centre’s other procedures.
    • That the matter concerned is already the subject of legal proceedings, or has already been referred to the regulatory authority, Department for Education and Skills, other appropriate public body or the Police.
    • That the matter concerned is already the subject of legal proceedings, or has already been referred to the regulatory authority, Department for Education and Skills, other appropriate public body or the Police.
    • If the Discloser chooses not to act on any of the recommendations, that decision will be notified in writing to the Chair of the Steering Group giving full reasons for the decision.


13. Notification of Outcome
    Once the Steering Group has decided what further action (if any) should be taken, the DO will inform the Discloser in writing of the decision. If no further action is proposed, the DO will give the reasons for this. If the outcome is the activation of the Disciplinary or Grievance procedures, then the confidentiality required under these procedures will be observed, which may mean that the Discloser is not informed of the specific outcome of those procedures. The DO will inform the Discloser that appropriate action has been taken, without describing the detail.


14. Appeal
    If the Discloser has not had a response within the above stated time limits or is dissatisfied with the outcome of the procedure he/she may, within five working days of receiving notification of the outcome from the DO, submit an appeal to the Steering Group or the Academic Board comprising the appropriate members depending on the nature of the disclosure. The Academic Board will make a final decision on action to be taken and will notify the Discloser, through the DO, of the outcome.


15. External Disclosure
    If, having followed this procedure, the Discloser remains dissatisfied with the outcome, he/she may raise the matter with the Police, the Department for Education and Skills or any other relevant public authority including the regulatory authority. Before taking such action, however, the Discloser will inform the DO.


16. Protection against Disciplinary Action
    No disciplinary action will be taken against a Discloser on the grounds of a disclosure made in accordance with this procedure. This will not prevent LSP taking disciplinary action where it had been substantiated that a disclosure has been made:
    • that is malicious or vexatious.
    • where there has been a breach of confidentiality
    • where an external disclosure is made in breach of this procedure without reasonable grounds, or otherwise than to an appropriate public authority.