Current issues in Pensions (12 November, London): Review of session on 'The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries' Disciplinary Scheme'

The Disciplinary Scheme has a wider reach than some people are aware of. It applies at all times to members of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, not just when they are at work. Misconduct may also include actions taken before becoming a member of the Institute and Faculty, or failure to take appropriate action to prevent the misconduct of a person a member is connected to. The definition of misconduct was included in the presentation, and can be broadly paraphrased as “failure to comply with the standards of behaviour, integrity and professional judgement reasonably expected of a member”.  The Disciplinary Scheme can be found on the Institute and Faculty's website, as well as details of how to lodge a complaint against a member.

The Disciplinary Board is made up of the Chairperson (currently Jane Irvine), six senior actuaries, a Queens Counsel (QC) and a solicitor. The Board is independent of the Institute and Faculty Council and its strategy is to regulate members in such a way as to ensure public confidence.

The 2012 objectives include:

• carrying out a review of the Disciplinary Scheme; and
• reviewing the effectiveness of communications and the consistency of determinations.

The review of the Disciplinary Scheme will consider if/how it can be applied overseas, and the range and effectiveness of sanctions. One area being looked at is that the number of complaints received in recent years looks low in relation to other professions. There have been around 200 complaints in the last nine years, out of a pool of around 24,000 Members. Roughly half of the complaints have related to Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It needs to be better understood if the low number of complaints is a result of there being few occurrences of misconduct, or whether there is a lack of awareness of the Disciplinary Scheme or how to lodge a complaint. 

One of the questions in the Q&A at the end asked whether there had been any complaints in relation to conflicts of interest, and if such a complaint would be judged against “accepted common practice at the time” or by today’s more rigorous standards. Andy responded that there had been complaints in relation to conflicted advice, and that he believed complaints would be judged against standards in place today, although “common practice at the time” could be taken into account when setting sanctions.