When the Localism Act was going through Parliament, most people agreed that there was a need for a less prescriptive and less bureaucratic standards framework, with greater autonomy for councils to develop their own arrangements for handling complaints.

However, there were strong concerns expressed that, for any local system to be effective and have public trust, it needed to be underpinned by effective local sanctions and a strong independent element. Without these the fears were it would be toothless and damaging to the reputation of local councillors.

Developments in 2013 tend to suggest these concerns were well-founded, and the recent survey conducted by Freeth Cartwright and the Local Government Lawyer website echo these concerns.

Some of the figures from the survey are eye-watering in their negativity. 85% of respondents say that sanctions are now too weak; 25% of respondents said the reforms had led to worse behaviour among members (as opposed to just 4% who said behaviour had improved).

At the same time, some 50% of respondents said that the new arrangements had not led to any reductions in the number of vexatious complaints about members – with a further 15% actually seeing an increase – despite this being the main stated aim behind the Government's reforms. On a brighter note, around 50% of respondents thought the role of the local Independent Person was working well.

So the picture that seems to be painted was the one the House of Lords had foreseen – a weaker framework with member behaviour declining as there are no longer any effective sanctions that can be applied locally and public confidence being damaged as they see politicians failing to act decisively against other politicians behaving badly.

But is this theory actually borne out by what has happened on the ground? We have worked with over 200 local authorities in some form or other on standards issues in the last year and recently ran a series of workshops for Independent Persons attended by over 150 delegates from a wide cross-section of councils and that picture does indeed seem borne out.

Despite the positive ratings, many of these IPs we met felt isolated and tokenistic with no clearly-defined role.

Recent issues in Hinckley and Hackney – where the Conservatives have withdrawn from the standards committee because of the politicisation of the framework by the ruling group – or Thanet – where the independent standards representatives have resigned en masse – seem to be the tip of an iceberg.

And there is widespread frustration at the lack of powers councils now have to deal with very challenging behaviour – borne out most notably last year by Cornwall Council's stated inability to deal effectively with one member and the public criticism this was causing them – which led them to write to DCLG, the LGA and the Committee on Standards in Public Life asking for tougher local sanctions.

We also hear numerous tales of press concern about hearings now being held in private by politically-controlled committees which is having a corrosive effect on local trust in some areas.

It is little surprise therefore that some councils have said to us that the reality is they don't see any point in dealing with any complaints given the hassle involved and lack of sanctions at the end of the process, regardless of how this might look to the public.

However, it is important that councils have robust and fair arrangements in place and do treat public concerns about misconduct seriously. There are a number of reasons why we say that.

The first reason quite simply is that having some arrangements, no matter how imperfect, is better than having none at all. A glaring example of this is ‘Plebgate' where matters have still not really been resolved due to the lack of any formal independent arrangements being put in place.

As a result, it seems Andrew Mitchell has in effect been exposed to trial by media, removed from a post for over a year while the costs continue to rack up, where a short independent enquiry may have dealt with the issue more satisfactorily and cheaply.

Also, we find members themselves want a fair process and hearing. We too often hear concerns from members about political committees making decisions about them behind closed doors without the full facts or for politically expedient reasons.

Similarly most members we speak to feel their own reputation and that of their council is damaged when poor behaviour is left undealt with.

And the public is rightly suspicious if they think decisions are being made in private by politicians about politicians. Transparency is a key element of allowing the public properly to hold their representatives to account but seems to be a major element lacking from a lot of complaints procedures we have seen.

The new standards arrangements can and do work well in some places. They do allow greater opportunity for minor matters to be dealt with more swiftly and appropriately to local circumstances.

And where there is an effective Independent person acting as guarantor of the local process this can be beneficial to raising public and councillor confidence in the process.