Conclusions and recommendations
The Role of the Standards Board for England
1. We
recommend that the Government and the Standards Board make all
aspects of their relationship readily transparent and that the
basis of that relationship is promulgated widely. (Paragraph 21)
2. We recommend that
the Standards Board and the Audit Commission monitor closely the
impact of their new working arrangements and be prepared to make
further revisions should it become apparent that their policies
or activities are or appear to be inconsistent at a local level.
(Paragraph 23)
Investigation and Enforcement
3. Rather
than being a unique weakness of the current system, we believe
that central initial assessment of complaints by experienced officers
applying a consistent set of criteria is one of its unique strengths.
(Paragraph 28)
4. It is regrettable
that the Government allowed a four year delay between the introduction
of the new ethical framework for local government and the completion
of the statutory measures required to make it work effectively.
It was unreasonable to expect the Standards Board to function
well within an incomplete statutory framework and without the
necessary resources and powers. (Paragraph 31)
5. We congratulate
the Standards Board on the progress that has been made in reducing
the average time taken between the receipt of a complaint and
the completion of any associated investigation. (Paragraph 39)
6. We recommend that
the impact of the s66 Regulations on the time taken to complete
investigations is monitored closely. If the Standards Board does
not meet its target of completing within six months 90 per cent
of its investigations by the end of the 2005-06 financial year,
further measures to improve efficiency will be required. Continuing
inordinate delays are counter-productive and unacceptable. (Paragraph
40)
7. We welcome the
June 2003 regulations enabling some cases to be referred to local
standards committees for determination. (Paragraph 43)
8. We recommend that
members against whom a complaint has been made be informed of
the complaint by the Standards Board as soon as it is received
and that the relevant monitoring officer be made aware of the
complaint at the same time. (Paragraph 47)
9. We do not support
the proposal that the names of the complainants should be made
public. (Paragraph 49)
10. We welcome the
Standards Board's commitment to review practice on the publication
of case details on its website during 2005 and recommend a reduction
in the duration of time for which the names of those exonerated
remain on the Standards Board's website. (Paragraph 50)
11. We support the
recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that
all parish councils remain within the ambit of the ethical framework
for local government. (Paragraph 51)
12. We strongly condemn
the activities of those who knowingly make vexatious, malicious
or frivolous complaints. (Paragraph 52)
13. We do not believe
that that the imposition of penalties on those making malicious
complaints would be beneficial in the long term. The additional
burden it would impose on the Standards Boards and its Ethical
Standards Officers could not be justified and we are conscious
that taking such approach may act as a disincentive to those with
legitimate complaints to raise. (Paragraph 53)
Promotion, Guidance and Training
14. The
Standards Board acknowledged a growing demand for its training
and guidance materials. We welcome the Standards Board's assurances
that further resources would be deployed to respond to this demand
and recommend that in doing so that it pay particular attention
to producing advice and guidance in a timely and accessible fashion.
(Paragraph 57)
15. We advocate an
approach whereby training on the Code of Conduct and ethical governance
for newly elected members becomes embedded within the culture
of local government organisations. (Paragraph 58)
16. We recommend that
the Standards Board include monitoring levels of attendance for
training as part of its annual programme of research and the Audit
Commission take account of attendance levels as part of the Comprehensive
Performance Assessment. (Paragraph 59)
17. We recommend that
the Board concentrate further resources on communications with
and promotion of compliance with the Code of Conduct to parish
councils. In this regard we welcome that Board's undertaking to
consider delivering training directly at a local level and would
urge it to do so quickly. (Paragraph 63)
The Code of Conduct
18. We
recommend that the general principles of standards of conduct
in public life, as set out in the Relevant Authorities (General
Principles) Order 2001, should be incorporated into the Code of
Conduct as this would provide greater context for the Code itself
and assist in interpretation. (Paragraph 68)
19. We agree with
the Committee on Standards in Public Life in their statement that
"the principle that the Code should support an organisational
culture that encourages the reporting of wrong-doing by others
is at the heart of ensuring high standards in public life".
(Paragraph 72)
20. There should be
scope within Clause 7 of the Code of Conduct for members to exercise
judgement in distinguishing between rumours and well-founded suspicions.
The Code, and any guidance produced on interpretation, should
reflect this. (Paragraph 73)
21. We do not support
the proposal that knowingly raising false allegations should be
a specific breach of the Code of Conduct. (Paragraph 74)
22. We recommend that
Clause 7 be amended to reduce its scope to include only complaints
arising from members' activities in public life. (Paragraph 75)
| 
