The Standards Board holds its fifth annual assembly in Birmingham next week, with some 800 ethics and monitoring officers due to attend. After instituting major changes in the way it handles complaints such as localising investigations, the board’s chief executive David Prince explains what should happen next Ethical standards are high on the agenda in every sector. Major businesses have corporate responsibility managers, and Sir Alistair Graham has called on all in national and local public life to consider how their own and their organisation’s behaviour matches up to the expectations placed on them by the public. The theme of our assembly this year is Bridging the gap. There is a gap between the public’s expectations of councillors and their experience. While the vast majority of councillors are highly committed to public service, we still receive 3,800 complaints a year. The reprehensible conduct of a tiny few, and the unacceptably low level behaviours of some others, unfairly tarnishes the high standing of the rest. In addition, there are gaps in authorities’ hearts and minds, and words and deeds, in grasping the standards agenda. In the best councils, leaders, mayors, and political parties take pride in what has already been achieved in embedding and role modelling the code of conduct. The best authorities have effective standards committees chaired by non-elected independent people with public standing. These are the places where monitoring officers have the capacity and clout to do the job. They give clear, consistent, robust and courageous advice, fully backed by their chief executives and standards committees. However, many are not there yet. There are big gaps to bridge. The annual assembly is part of our work to offer help and guidance to meet the real challenges they face. Ownership of the standards framework has already devolved to councils. Most cases are now handled locally, investigated by monitoring officers, and heard by standards committees comprising members’ peers, plus local people independent of the council. And already, local case handling is bringing benefits. It is increasing awareness of the code and drawing the lines as to acceptable local behaviour, resulting in improving behaviours. This is self-regulation in action. However, again there are gaps, with concerns about poor or unfair procedures, delays, and strains on resources and officer-member relationships. Despite a degree of noise from a minority of members who, for whatever reason, remain opposed to even the increasingly locally-based standards framework, there is much survey evidence that the expectation of adherence to high standards is, for most councillors, the way daily business is done. So what next? We hope the minister for local government and communities, Phil Woolas, will tell the annual assembly his timetable for bringing in the changes to the code that we recommended in 2005. We want clearer rules on interests and greater support of members’ community advocacy role, while still ensuring decisions are taken in the public interest. We are also looking forward to new legislation in 2008 that will enable complaints to be sent straight to councils for filtering and handling. The Standards Board for England, based in our new Manchester home, will have a strategic regulatory role. We will champion high standards, monitor the effectiveness of the local system, and investigate the serious cases that councils cannot handle themselves. If we all get this right, local government can properly expect public confidence through signing up to and being seen to live out a clear set of rules. It can become a beacon of high standards that are not a begrudged add-on, but an integral part of how it is seen to do its daily business. And that feels like something worth working for. n David Prince is chief executive of the Standards Board for England