10For a MiFID optional exemption firm and a third country firm:

1. (a)

   the rules and guidance in this chapter apply to them as if they were rules or as guidance in accordance with SYSC 1 Annex 1 3.2CR(1); and

2. (b)

   those articles of the MiFID Org Regulation in SYSC 1 Annex 1 2.8AR and SYSC 1 Annex 1 3.2CR apply to them as if they were rules or as guidance in accordance with SYSC 1 Annex 1 3.2CR(2).

A firm's systems and controls should enable it to satisfy itself of the suitability of anyone who acts for it. This includes assessing an individual's honesty and competence. This assessment should normally be made at the point of recruitment. An individual's honesty need not normally be revisited unless something happens to make a fresh look appropriate.

Any assessment of an individual's suitability should take into account the level of responsibility that the individual will assume within the firm. The nature of this assessment will generally differ depending upon whether it takes place at the start of the individual's recruitment, at the end of the probationary period (if there is one) or subsequently.

12 SYSC 28 contains rules and guidance relating to the minimum knowledge and competence requirements in relation to insurance distribution activities undertaken by a firm.

The Training and Competence sourcebook (TC) contains additional rules and guidance relating to specified retail activities undertaken by a firm.2

2 Firms which are carrying on activities that are not subject to TC may nevertheless wish to take TC into account in complying with the competence requirements in SYSC.

The requirements on firms with respect to approved persons are in Part V of the Act (Performance of regulated activities) and SUP 10A, SUP 10C and in the corresponding parts of the PRA’s Rulebook9.

2If a firm requires employees who are not subject to a qualification7 requirement in TC to pass a relevant examination from the list of appropriate qualifications11 maintained by the FCA, or for the purposes of meeting its obligations under SYSC 5.1.5ABR11, the FCA10 will take that into account when assessing whether the firm has ensured that the employee satisfies the knowledge component of the competent employees rule.

11The rules which implement articles 24 and 25 of MiFID can be found in COBS and PROD and are identified with a ‘Note:’.

11The ESMA “Guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence”, 3 January 2017 (ESMA71-1154262120-153 EN (rev)), specify14 the criteria for the assessment of knowledge and competence for the purposes of SYSC 5.1.5ABR. 14

1. (1)

   11The FCA expects a firm to act consistently with the ESMA guidelines referred to in SYSC 5.1.5ADG in relation to its MiFID or equivalent third country business.

2. (2)

   The FCA is required to publish various information on its website in relation to firms’ assessment of relevant individuals’ knowledge and competence. That information can be found at https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/training-competence

3. (3)

   A firm to which the Training and Competence sourcebook (TC) applies may satisfy its knowledge and competence obligations under SYSC 5.1.5ABR in relation to a relevant individual by way of compliance with its obligations in TC.

3Other firms should take account of the segregation of functions rules (SYSC 5.1.6 R and SYSC 5.1.7 R) as if they were guidance (and as if "should" appeared in those rules10 instead of "must") as explained in SYSC 1 Annex 1 3.3 R(1)10.

The effective segregation of duties is an important element in the internal controls of a firm in the prudential context. In particular, it helps to ensure that no one individual is completely free to commit a firm's assets or incur liabilities on its behalf. Segregation can also help to ensure that a firm'sgoverning body receives objective and accurate information on financial performance, the risks faced by the firm and the adequacy of its systems.

A firm should normally ensure that no single individual has unrestricted authority to do all of the following:

1. (1)

   initiate a transaction;

2. (2)

   bind the firm;

3. (3)

   make payments; and

4. (4)

   account for it.

Where a firm is unable to ensure the complete segregation of duties (for example, because it has a limited number of staff), it should ensure that there are adequate compensating controls in place (for example, frequent review of an area by relevant senior managers).

Where a firm10 outsources its internal audit function, it should take reasonable steps to ensure that every individual involved in the performance of this service is independent from the individuals who perform its external audit. This should not prevent services from being undertaken by a firm's external auditors provided that:

1. (1)

   the work is carried out under the supervision and management of the firm's own internal staff; and

2. (2)

   potential conflicts of interest between the provision of external audit services and the provision of internal audit are properly managed.

3Other firms should take account of the rule concerning awareness of procedures (SYSC 5.1.12 R) as if it were guidance (and as if should appeared in that rule10 instead of must) as explained in SYSC 1 Annex 1 3.3 R(1)10.

3Other firms should take account of the rule requiring monitoring and evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of systems (SYSC 5.1.14 R) as if it were guidance (and as if should appeared in that rule10 instead of must) as explained in SYSC 1 Annex 1 3.3 R(1)10.