On 31 May 1995, the committee on standards in public life, chaired by the senior judge Lord Nolan, published the “Seven Principles of Public Life”, establishing an ethical framework to which public servants are all expected to adhere.

The committee was set up by the prime minister, John Major, in a bid to restore public confidence in government, which had been damaged by a series of political scandals.

In the months that followed Major’s “Back to basics” speech in October 1993, the government suffered from a series of embarrassing revelations. In January 1994, Tim Yeo – who had spoken of reducing single-parent families – resigned as environment minister after admitting he had fathered an illegitimate child.

More significantly, in October 1994, the Guardian alleged that Conservative MPs Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith had accepted payments from Mohamed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, in exchange for tabling parliamentary questions – a controversy that became known as the “cash-for-questions” scandal.

Smith was said to have received cash payments of between £18,000 and £25,000; he immediately resigned as a junior Northern Ireland minister. Hamilton staunchly denied the Guardian’s claims. He joked during a photo opportunity at a school that he needed to declare a biscuit “on the Register of Members’ Interests.”

It was this controversy that precipitated the establishment of the committee on standards in public life.

***

Major announced the establishment of the committee in a statement to the House of Commons on 25 October 1994. It came as he unveiled a report, conducted by the cabinet secretary, into the initial disclosures that would later be identified as the cash-for-questions scandal.

The prime minister stated: “Upon the substance of the allegations, the House now knows that [Smith] has resigned from the government. [Hamilton] has rigorously rejected – both orally and in writing – the allegations of impropriety made against him, and is taking legal action.”

Major then referred to new allegations made against Hamilton and announced his resignation as minister for corporate affairs.

Turning to wider issues, Major said it was essential that “the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods of making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority and the financial and commercial activities of public figures.”

He added: “In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life and I have concluded that action is imperative.”

Major therefore announced the creation of a body chaired by Lord Nolan, a lord of appeal in ordinary (law lord), and invited the opposition parties to nominate additional members.

Lord Nolan chaired the committee from October 1994 to November 1997.

The committee’s original terms of reference were 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.”

In its landmark 1995 report, the so-called Nolan committee concluded that a formal code of conduct was needed. It laid out seven core principles that it argued should apply to all aspects of public life.

Clip.

In full, these are:

• Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
• Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
• Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
• Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
• Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
• Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
• Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

The ‘Nolan principles’, as they became known, were welcomed by the government and became enshrined in codes of conduct across the public sector. They form the basis of the ministerial code, a breach of which is considered a resigning offence, as well as the House of Commons code of conduct, the House of Lords code of conduct, and the Civil Service code.

The Nolan committee’s first report also led to the creation of the independent parliamentary commissioner for standards. Under the standing orders of the House, the standards commissioner is tasked with overseeing and monitoring the implementation of the code of conduct for MPs.

In addition, Nolan’s findings led to the establishment of the committee on standards and privileges – with a remit expanded to include consideration of matters relating to the conduct of members.

***

The committee on standards in public life continues to advise the prime minister on ethical issues and conducting inquiries to this effect. It consists of political members, nominated by the political parties, as well as independent members, appointed by the prime minister.

The current chair of the committee is lieutenant general Sir Doug Chalmers.

The committee’s 2023 report, Leading in Practice, reviewed the institutions that uphold standards.

It sought to “challenge leaders in the public sector to reflect on their own leadership and consider whether there is more they can do to support the ethical buoyancy of their organisations.”

The report formulated a series of questions for leaders to ask themselves.

The first question asked: “How do the people in your organisation know that you care about the principles of public life?”