Dear Sir or Madam,

Taking into account that the Committee on Standards in Public Life
was established in 1994

‘To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all
holders of public office, including arrangements relating to
financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to
any changes in present arrangements which might be required to
ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.’

and that:

'For these purposes, public office should include: Ministers, civil
servants and advisers; Members of Parliament and UK Members of the
European Parliament; Members and senior officers of all
non-departmental public bodies and of national health service
bodies; non-ministerial office holders; members and other senior
officers of other bodies discharging publicly-funded functions; and
elected members and senior officers of local authorities’.

and that:

On 12 November 1997 the terms of reference were extended by the
Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Tony Blair MP: ‘To review issues in
relation to the funding of political parties, and to make
recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements’.

Does the Committee on Standards in Public Life have any intention
to examine the issues associated with the appointment of Local
Government Ombudsmen ['LGO'] and the constitution of the Commission
for Local Administration in England ['CLAE'], and much needed
guidance on the meaning of the term maladministration.

Award of planning consents by local government appears to be one of
the main sources of funding to the political parties. Ministers
have identified in writing that complaints to the LGO have been
determined prior to them being considered (government intervention
is strongly suspected), and the Secretary of State and their
Department since about 1995 has only recommended appointment of
LGO's by the Crown who have previously been identified as having
failed to administer fair and just Council Complaints systems. On
grounds of probity, merit and independence it is unlikely that any
of the current LGO's should have been recommended for appointment
by the Minister and their Department.

The situation has reached the stage where the LGO's identify that
they should be made responsible for local authorities where they
used to work, and seek to disguise responsibility for the issue of
reports identifying maladministration causing injustice. Within
about the last year despite much lower levels of maladministration
causing injustice being identified by LGO's than historically (due
it appears to them all having been appointed from Local Government)
at least four Council's have rejected the LGO's findings and
recommendation for a remedy. This appears to be because Council's
carry no insurance against maladministration causing injustice
(apart from the Secretary of States and their Departments
recommendation for their appointment). The LGO's appear on about 13
February 2007 identify in their minutes that they not only intend
but would breach the breach the seven principles of Public Life
proposed by the Committee in the belief that they were
unaccountable.

These issues are highly pertinent to what should be the work of the
Committee. The Committee appears to have failed to examine the work
of the Ombudsmen, and this appears to be a serious failing.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

I have now handed over to my successor, Dr Richard Jarvis. All inquiries can be addressed to Gloria Durham on 0207.276.2589. Your mail has not been forwarded and has been deleted

The Cabinet Office computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

show quoted sections

Alleged Breach of s10 and s1 of the FoI Act by Committee on
Standards in Public Life

Appeal to the Information Commissioner

On 26 July 2008 I made a Freedom of Information request to the
Committee on Standards in Public Life [‘SPL’]. A copy is attached
[TAB 1]. The SPL has failed to respond.

The SPL is understood to be in breach of s10 of the Freedom of
Information [‘FoI’] Act, and as a consequence to be in breach of s1
of the FoI Act. The Information Commissioner is requested to
formally identify the breaches of the FoI Act by SPL, and further
to require them to post the information requested on the ‘What do
they Know Web Site". A copy of the request and identification of
SPL failure to respond is available at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/om.... A
copy of this appeal to the ICO is also posted at this site.

The issues are very straightforward. The SPL has failed to identify
if it holds documents identifying its intentions, and if it intends
to investigate the issues requested. It seems very strange that an
Organisation established to protect standards in public life can
choose to flout the law (FoI Act). Obviously the ICO might have
views on this issue. The SPL appears to lack the required
procedures to meet the FoI, despite these being monitored by the
Cabinet Office.

Yours faithfully

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers