The review advocates that the culture of the regulator should support the exercise of judgement. Supervisors ought to feel comfortable when making those difficult calls. The exercise of supervisory judgement requires clarity around the standards which competency and conduct are assessed. It is therefore in the interests of supervisors that regulated firms understand what is expected of them. Furthermore, it is crucial that regulated firms are encouraged "to adopt a proactive role in assessing and ensuring the F&P of their senior leaders, effectively internalising the regulatory objectives at both operational and cultural levels"

At a base level the review perceives fairness where both the individual and the firm: 

Understand how decisions are made and what is expected of them; feel that they are being treated with dignity and respect; perceive that a decision is being made in an unbiased and trustworthy manner and therefore neutral; and that they have a voice and opportunity to be heard

Connected to the theme of fairness, the review advocates that for a process to be fair it needs to be efficient and deliver timely outcomes to firms and individuals.

Proportionality applies to all stages of the process but the review identifies that it should be considered during the assessment process to be aligned with the risk-based approach adopted by the regulator. Proportionality ought to extend to the due diligence expectations placed on regulated entities by considering the nature, scale and complexity of a regulated firm. Finally, proportionality also extends to the decision-making stage of the F&P process by ensuring that "decisions are proportionate to the issues or concerns identified, taking into account the unique context and circumstances of each case".

This theme draws out the difference between F&P gatekeeping assessment and enforcement investigation. The gatekeeping assessment focusses on proactive prevention whereas enforcement investigation considers misconduct that may have already occurred. Both approaches differ from an operational perspective and it is important that this differentiation in culture is embedded through segregation of the F&P function from the enforcement function

Recommendation 1 - Fostering industry role in gatekeeping – the review recommends that the CBI ought to provide greater clarity and guidance to industry on the role of regulated entities in the gatekeeping phase to ensure that they understand what is expected of them. This will encourage a proactive approach by the regulated entities in the F&P process.

Recommendation 2 – Clear fitness and probity standards – standards ought to be accessible and consolidated in a single location. They must be comprehensive, enhanced and regularly reviewed.

Recommendation 3 – Governance – the establishment of an F&P gatekeeping unit with responsibility for the entire gatekeeping process, enhanced implementation of a risk-based approach for F&P gatekeeping, a reconsideration of the overall number of PCF roles and adjustment in approach to different sectors.

Recommendation 4 – Decision-making – the establishment of a significant decisions committee with a Chair who is a senior official not routinely involved in the assessment stage. 

Recommendation 5 – Communication and IT platform – the CBI to organise an annual information session for firms and individuals to assist with their understanding of the F&P process. Ad hoc workshops to be organised to obtain feedback from firms to improve efficiency in the process.

Recommendation 6 – Interview stage – notification of a minimum of five working days for interviews which should last no longer than 90 minutes. Interview environments should be conversational rather than adversarial. Individuals permitted to bring a note keeper or a lawyer as observers. The CBI to provide feedback in all cases.

Recommendation 7 – Efficiency of interview process -  "meet and greet" type interviews should not form part of the F&P gatekeeping process. The CBI should aim to conduct one single comprehensive interview.

Recommendation 8 – Withdrawals/feedback – interview feedback to be provided in cases where withdrawal occurs and that the CBI will not engage in off-record discussions with regulated entities regarding specific F&P applications.

Recommendation 9 – Management information – the CBI should provide clear and comprehensive service standards, commit to time limits (e.g. 90 days for F&P gatekeeping applications), report various data and qualitative points in order to promote transparency and avoid confusion.

Recommendation 10 – Quality assurance – a robust quality assurance mechanisms should be set in place with an externally appointed risk advisor.

Recommendation 11 – Complaints procedure – a complaints procedure should be established specifically for the F&P gatekeeping process and led by an externally appointed risk advisor.

Recommendation 12 – Training – develop a comprehensive training programme for the F&P gatekeeping process.