Members of the Working Group have considered the array of Questionnaires, Legislation, Policies and Procedures used to assess F&P across the various CAIR jurisdictions. Whilst there are a lot of similarities in ethos, there are a few differences in approach and, as expected, the actual underpinning legislation.
Trying to adopt a common F&P Questionnaire or set of uniform F&P laws across the member states might prove problematic, as changes in laws might require legislative approval and this takes time. Furthermore, changes in laws, and even Questionnaires, involve prolonged consultation with the industry bodies and stakeholders; and it might be challenging to arrive at something that will please all member states. With this in mind, the Working Group has decided to concentrate its efforts on developing ‘guidance’ to be used when assessing F&P that can be applied consistently across CAIR member states.
The objective is to establish guidance that will be applied consistently by CAIR member states, when assessing F&P of individuals, and to encourage information sharing; to mitigate the likelihood of an individual who has been assessed as not F&P in one jurisdiction being assessed as F&P in another. The guidance will therefore:
- Set out and describe the criteria member states will use to decide whether individuals are F&P to perform a key individual or officer role.
- Encourage member states to endeavour to maintain adherence to best international standards on F&P.
- Encourage member states to expect individuals approved to remain F&P on an ongoing basis and not just at the point of approval. For example if an individual were no longer to be F&P, it would be expected that this is brought to the attention of the regulatory body immediately.
- Set out and describe the criteria member states will use to share F&P information’ especially where an individual has been assessed not to be F&P, with other member states.
The sharing of information on persons/individuals, especially when assessed as not F&P, needs to be factored into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) amongst member states, if not already done. The purpose of this guidance would be defeated if member states use a consistent F&P assessment approach but do not share information. The ethos of this guidance, amongst other things, is to forestall a situation where someone who has been declared not fit and proper moves to another jurisdiction and is assessed as fit and proper due to lack of information sharing and inconsistent standards.