Guiding Principles: Public Attitudes towards Conduct in Public Life

Full text

Guiding Principles:
Public Attitudes towards Conduct in
Public Life
Jenny Graham, William O'Connor, John Curtice & Alison Park
Prepared for The Committee on Standards in Public Life
January 2003

National Centre for Social Research
Contents
THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... I
Introduction ................................................................................................................... i
What standards and why? ........................................................................................... i
What behaviour and why?.......................................................................................... ii
How does this research increase understanding of public attitudes? .................iii
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1
1.1 Background to the study................................................................................. 1
1.2 Aims and scope of the research ..................................................................... 2
1.3 Research design................................................................................................ 2
1.3.1 Sample design ..............................................................................................2
1.4 Recruitment ...................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Conduct of the research .................................................................................. 4
1.6 Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 4
1.7 Coverage of the report..................................................................................... 5
2 WHY STANDARDS MATTER FOR PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS .........7
2.1 The importance of standards.......................................................................... 7
2.1.1 The potential to be a role model ................................................................7
2.1.2 The level of responsibility and power awarded ......................................8
2.1.3 Involvement in setting standards for society...........................................9
2.1.4 The need to be accountable.........................................................................9
2.2 Trust and confidence in public office holders............................................ 10
2.2.1 Views expressed about political trust .....................................................11
2.2.2 Other research on political trust ..............................................................13
2.3 The scope of standards in public office....................................................... 15
2.3.1 Are standards important for all public office holders?.........................15
2.3.2 Should standards be set for all types of conduct? .................................17
Key conclusions of Chapter 2 ................................................................................... 22
3 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD CONDUCT ..........................................................23
3.1 How principles were generated................................................................... 23
3.2 The definition of principles of good conduct............................................. 24
3.2.1 Selflessness..................................................................................................24
Keeping in touch with the people..................................................................26
Representing the views of the people.............................................................27
3.2.2 Integrity.......................................................................................................27
3.2.3 Objectivity...................................................................................................29
3.2.4 Accountability ............................................................................................30
3.2.5 Openness.....................................................................................................32
3.2.6 Honesty .......................................................................................................33
3.2.7 Leadership ..................................................................................................35
3.3 How public opinion compares with the Committee’s definitions of good
conduct ............................................................................................................ 37
3.4 The relative importance of different aspects of conduct .......................... 40

National Centre for Social Research
3.5 The relevance of principles for different office holders............................ 42
3.6 Key conclusions of Chapter 3....................................................................... 44
4 THE PRINCIPLES IN ACTION ....................................................................45
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 45
4.2 The application of principles to the scenarios............................................ 45
4.2.1 The relevance of different principles.......................................................46
4.2.2 The point at which a principle is transgressed ......................................48
4.3 Factors underpinning the application of principles.................................. 49
4.3.1 Trust.............................................................................................................50
4.3.2 Perceived benefit of conduct ....................................................................52
4.3.3 Power...........................................................................................................52
4.3.4 Normality....................................................................................................53
4.3.5 Reasonableness...........................................................................................53
4.3.6 Expectations of self ....................................................................................55
4.3.7 Views about the public sector and private business .............................56
4.3.8 Expertise or knowledge of the legality of conduct................................57
Key conclusions of Chapter 4 ................................................................................... 58
5 REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................59
5.1 The importance of standards........................................................................ 59
5.1.1 What standards matter and why .............................................................60
5.1.2 Applying standards...................................................................................61
5.2 How does this research increase our understanding of public attitudes?
.......................................................................................................................... 61
References ....................................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX 1 – SAMPLE PROFILE ....................................................................................................0
APPENDIX 2 – TOPIC GUIDE ............................................................................................................1

National Centre for Social Research
THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act 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 seek to 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.

National Centre for Social Research
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks are due to Sarah Tyerman and Steve Pares of the Committee on
Standards in Public Life for their assistance and advice throughout the project.
Thanks are also due to the members of the Advisory Group for this study whose
expertise and perspective contributed to the success of the research.
At NatCen, we would like to thank Alice Mowlam and Carl McLean for their
thoughtful contribution to the data analysis. Our gratitude is also due to Anthony
Heath of CREST who contributed to early discussion on the design of this study.
Finally, we are of course appreciative of the individuals that participated in the
research, who gave of their valuable personal time. We are indebted to them for their
fulsome contributions and hope we have done justice to their views.

National Centre for Social Research
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1. Since its establishment in 1994 the Committee on Standards in Public Life has
monitored the behaviour of public office holders and recommended practices
that would ensure that the highest possible standards are met. In the course of
its work the Committee has set out the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’. These
principles describe the behaviour expected of those who hold public office. They
are: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and
Leadership.
2. Hitherto, however, little research has been conducted into what the public thinks
are the standards that should be upheld by the holders of public office. As a
result we do not know whether the Seven Principles encompass what the public
think matters. As a first step towards filling that gap, focus groups were
undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) in conjunction with
the Centre for Research into Elections and Social trends (CREST). Fifteen focus
groups were conducted at six locations in different parts of Great Britain in
February and March 2002.
3. The main aims of the research were to (i) to explore with the general public the
standards that public office holders should uphold, and (ii) to investigate public
attitudes to the types of conduct implied by the Seven Principles.
What standards and why?
4. The focus group discussions suggest that the public place great importance on
the maintenance of proper standards in public life. They believe standards
matter because public office holders:-:
a. have a responsibility to provide guidance and leadership;
b. are awarded considerable power and/or responsibility;
c. through legislating are involved in setting standards for society in
general;
d. need to be accountable because they are financed from the public purse.
5. Participants in the focus groups exhibited widespread distrust of public office
holders, especially elected politicians, and often expressed doubts about whether
adequate standards of conduct were being maintained. This distrust permeated
participants’ views and judgements throughout the focus group discussions.
This mood reflects the results of recent survey research.
6. Although there was widespread agreement on the importance of standards there
was less agreement about their scope. Participants disagreed about whether all

National Centre for Social Research
ii
public office holders should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and about
whether and when standards should be applied to a person’s private life.
7. The focus group discussions suggest that the Seven Principles of Public Life
encompass many of the standards that the public believe should be upheld by
public office holders. This represents a significant endorsement of the relevance
of the Seven Principles in the public mind.
8. However, the focus groups also suggest that the public’s understanding of the
scope of some of the principles is rather broader than that implied by the
Committee’s current definition. This is particularly true of Leadership and
Selflessness. Indeed, some of the public’s concerns, such as the willingness of
politicians to keep their election promises, may be thought to lie outside the
proper remit of any regulatory framework. It also appears that the public do not
always draw a clear distinction between some of the principles (e.g. Openness
and Accountability), and sometimes expresses them in rather different language
than that used by the Committee.
9. The most important principle for the public appears to be Honesty. Many
participants suggested that if public office holders were honest, the other
principles would automatically be upheld. Accountability and Openness were
also viewed as amongst the more important principles.
What behaviour and why?
10. In order to explore how the public applies abstract principles of conduct in
practice, the focus group participants were presented with three scenarios that
described behaviour by a public office holder that might be considered
unethical.
11. The results of this exercise suggest that there is little agreement amongst the
public about how the principles of public life should be applied. The same set of
circumstances were regarded by different participants as breaches of different
principles. Even when there was consensus on the relevance of a particular
principle, the point at which it was seen to have been breached was different for
individual participants.
12. Differences in the application of principles arose because the acceptability of a
particular behaviour was not only judged with reference to the principles but
also with respect to a range of other additional factors. These were:
a. how much prior trust participants had in the public office holder in
question;
b. the perceived benefit or value of the conduct portrayed;
c. how empowered respondents felt to challenge or change conduct;
d. how common the situation was perceived to be;
e. whether the conduct was considered reasonable in the circumstances;

National Centre for Social Research
iii
f.
the expectations that respondents would have of themselves in the
scenarios depicted;
g. whether the public sector could be expected to maintain higher standards
than private business;
h. prior expertise or knowledge of the legality of the behaviour presented in
the scenarios.
How does this research increase understanding of public attitudes?
13. A number of the findings echo those of such research on public attitudes
towards this subject as has been previously conducted. In particular:-
a. that the public believe that standards matter and should be enforced
through a system of independent regulation;
b. that there is ambivalence and disagreement amongst the public about
whether the private lives of public office holders should be subject to
public scrutiny;
c. that there is considerable doubt about whether standards are currently
being upheld.
14. This however is the first study to have attempted a systematic exploration of
public attitudes towards this subject. It has ascertained four new and significant
findings. These are:-
a. All of the Seven Principles of Public Life feature in the public’s view of what
standards matter in public life.
b. The public’s definition of what the Seven Principles mean is sometimes rather
wider than the definition adopted by the Committee on Standards in Public
Life.
c. The most important standard for the public is Honesty.
d. There appears to be widespread disagreement about whether any particular
behaviour is or is not acceptable because behaviour is not only judged
according to a set of standards but also a range of other considerations.

National Centre for Social Research
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of qualitative research that explores public attitudes
towards the standards of conduct in public life. The research was carried out by the
Qualitative Research Unit at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) in
conjunction with the Centre for Research into Elections and Social trends (CREST) which
is a joint ESRC Research Centre between NatCen and Nuffield College Oxford. The
research was commissioned by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
1.1 Background to the study
The Committee on Standards in Public Life (hereafter the Committee) was
established in October 1994 by the then Prime Minister, John Major MP. Its terms of
reference are to monitor current concerns about the conduct of public office holders
and, where necessary, recommend changes in practice to ensure that the highest
standards are met. The Committee quickly laid down the ‘Seven Principles of Public
Life’ which prescribe the behaviour expected of those who hold public office. These
principles are: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty
and Leadership. They have been widely adopted by many public institutions in the
United Kingdom. During the past seven years, the Committee has produced
numerous reports exploring the attainment, or otherwise, of their implied standards
of conduct amongst different types of public office holders.
In March 2001, a new chair of the Committee was appointed, Sir Nigel Wicks, who
announced a focus on two broad objectives. The first of these was to publish an
audit of the progress that had been made on each one of the recommendations made
by the Committee since its inception. The second was to undertake research into the
public’s attitudes towards standards of conduct in public life.
The study reported here is the first step towards achieving the second of those two
objectives. It was exploratory in nature, and expected to inform the conduct of two
further stages of research: the development and testing of survey questions on
behaviour in public office followed by a quantitative survey of public attitudes.
Public attitudes towards the conduct of public office holders has been an area in
which little objective research has been previously conducted (see Section 5.2.2 for
further details). Though the Seven Principles may have been adopted by many
organisations, there has been no systematic exploration of whether these reflect the
public’s views about what standards matter, or what kinds of behaviour would
generally be considered to transgress those standards. Hitherto we have had at best
only fragmentary evidence of just what the public thinks about these issues. This
study starts to fill that vital gap.

National Centre for Social Research
2
1.2 Aims and scope of the research
This research had two key aims:
•
to explore with the general public the standards that public office
holders should uphold;
•
to investigate public attitudes to the types of conduct implied by the
Seven Principles.
It was conducted by undertaking group discussions with members of the general
public throughout England, Scotland and Wales. It is important to note that, as a
qualitative study, this project does not provide estimates of the prevalence of
attitudes amongst the general public. Rather it identifies the range of opinion that
appears to exist, the language in which it is expressed, and the reasons that people
give for holding the views they have.
1.3 Research design
One important reason why a qualitative approach was adopted in this study is that
because of the lack of previous research into public attitudes in this area, we have
little idea what questions it would make sense to include in any survey of the general
public, let alone be able to guess what the answers might be (Schuman and Presser,
1981). Rather than imposing a framework upon participants, qualitative research
makes it possible to explore people’s views and perceptions from their perspective,
using their terminology and language, thereby helping to frame the discussion
around those issues and topics that are meaningful to them. It can also be a powerful
tool for explaining how and why views vary between different sectors of the public.
1.3.1 Sample design
The study comprised 15 focus groups conducted across six geographical locations
including rural areas, town and cities, and including places in each of England,
Scotland and Wales.
The ability to draw wider inference from qualitative research relies, in part, on the
nature and quality of the sampling. In selecting those to be included in a qualitative
sample the aim is to ensure diversity of coverage across certain key variables rather
than to compile a sample that is statistically representative of the wider population –
i.e. the purpose is to map rather than mirror the population. Purposive sampling of
this kind provides the opportunity to explore those factors, influences, and
experiences that are thought to influence the attitudes being studied.
One of the key messages from past British Social Attitudes (BSA) research is that
attitudes towards moral issues are primarily related to education and age rather than
social class (Heath et al, 1991; Bromley & Curtice, 1999). As it is a reasonable
hypothesis that this subject – standards in public life – is likely to influenced by
underlying moral values, and because discussion groups work best when there is an
element of commonality amongst participants, the sample was structured so that
each individual group was homogeneous in terms of age group and educational
attainment. Table 1.1 shows the resultant group structure.

National Centre for Social Research
3
Table 1.1 Group structure
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
18-
30
yrs
GCSE or
lower
Degree &
above
Above
GCSE/
below
degree
GCSE or
lower
-
Degree &
above
31-
50
yrs
Above
GCSE/
Below
degree
GCSE or
Lower
Degree &
above
Above
GCSE/
Below
degree
Degree &
above
GCSE or
lower
51-
70
yrs
Degree
& above
Above
GCSE/
Below
degree
GCSE or
lower
-
Above
GCSE/
below
degree
-
In addition, the composition of each group was carefully controlled to ensure there
was sufficient heterogeneity to generate diversity and debate. The other main
sampling criteria employed were:
• Gender - A balance of men and women were included in each group.
• Main economic activity – Every group contained a mixture of people in
different work situations. Thus there was a mixture of full time and part
time employees (further split between those working in the public and
private sectors), self employed, unemployed and available for work,
unemployed and not available for work (in receipt of benefits such as
incapacity benefit, or income support), students, retired people and those
who were fulltime carers or homemakers.
• Political party affiliation – Supporters of all the major political parties
(including the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales) were included in
each group, as well as those without any party affiliation.
• Ethnicity – Respondents from a variety of ethnic groups were included in
the sample, where they were represented in the local population.
• Geographical area –as noted above the research was conducted in six
different locations in Great Britain and covered different types of areas –
rural areas, towns, and cities – in order to capture discussion of different
local concerns and different types of office holders. The six areas were
Lewisham, in South East London, Swansea, Stirling, Middlesbrough,
North Herefordshire and North Norfolk. A further group was conducted
in Port Glasgow in Inverclyde to replace a group in Stirling where
respondent attendance was low.
122 people participated in the study. A profile of the achieved sample is shown in
Appendix One.

National Centre for Social Research
4
1.4 Recruitment
Respondents were recruited via a door-to-door screening exercise in each of the six
areas. A detailed questionnaire was designed and recruiters were asked to approach
households living in specific constituencies (without pre-selection of addresses), to
identify individuals who fell within the selection criteria, and to seek their
willingness to participate in the study. The screening questionnaire collected
information needed to establish eligibility for selection - age, educational level, main
economic activity, gender, ethnicity and political party identification.
Selected respondents were given a letter that confirmed their involvement in the
research and advised them of the details of the forthcoming focus group. It also
reiterated the aims of the research and assured them of the confidentiality of the
study and of their involvement. They were also given information about NatCen, and
a contact telephone number to discuss their further involvement with a researcher, if
they wished to do so.
1.5 Conduct of the research
The focus groups were conducted in February and March 2002 by members of the
research team. All groups were exploratory and interactive in form so that
questioning could be responsive to participants’ contributions. The discussion was
based on a topic guide that outlined the key subjects to be discussed. First of all
general attitudes to standards of conduct were discussed. This was followed by a
brainstorming session with group participants – who were asked to suggest recent
examples of good or bad conduct amongst public office holders – and to discuss
what aspects of the conduct made it acceptable or not. The groups were then
presented with three fictional scenarios that described the fictional conduct of
particular public office holders, and these were used to facilitate a detailed
discussion of the application of principles of good conduct to actual behaviour.
Finally, participants were asked about what they felt were the key characteristics of a
good public office holder. The topic guide, including the scenarios, is contained in
Appendix Two.
Groups were conducted in a neutral setting, usually in the function room of a local
public house or hotel. Each participant received a payment of £20 in appreciation of
their time and to cover any expenses incurred in taking part. Each focus group
lasted between one and a half and two hours. With the agreement of participants, all
groups were tape recorded for verbatim transcription.
1.6 Data Analysis
The qualitative data was comprehensively and systematically analysed. Verbatim
transcriptions of the group discussions were analysed using ‘Framework’ a
qualitative data analysis method, developed at NatCen, which uses a thematic
approach to classify and interpret data (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994) (Ritchie, Spencer &
O’Connor, in press). It is a systematic and transparent method of analysis that
enhances the validity and reliability of interpreted findings.

National Centre for Social Research
5
Framework involves a number of stages. First, the key topics and issues that emerge
from the data are identified through familiarisation with transcripts. Following this
a framework of key issues is then devised. A series of thematic charts, or matrices, is
created, each one relating to a different thematic issue. The columns in each matrix
represent the key sub-themes or topics whilst the rows represent individual
respondents. Data from each respondent is summarised into the appropriate cell.
The context of the information is retained and the page of the transcript from which
it comes noted, so that it is possible to return to a transcript to explore a point in
more detail or to extract text for verbatim quotation.
In this way, the data are ordered within an analytical framework that is grounded in
respondents’ own accounts. The charts allow the full pattern of an individual’s
attitudes to be reviewed. They also enable the accounts of different respondents, or
groups of respondents, to be compared and contrasted
1.7 Coverage of the report
Throughout the report, verbatim quotations or extracts from transcripts are
presented. To preserve the anonymity of respondents, specific details - such as
names or places - which might identify them have been omitted. In addition, when
office holders were mentioned by name, these have been anonymised. Where
extracts are given they are assigned to a particular group by identifying the age
group and educational attainment level of the respondents involved, and the type of
area (city, town, rural) in which the group was held. Individual quotations are
attributed in much same way but also include details of the respondent’s current
activity, party affiliation and gender.
The report contains four further chapters. The following chapter (Chapter 2)
examines why standards are felt to matter for public office holders and explores
what the scope of such standards should be and to whom they should apply.
Chapter 3 examines in detail the principles of conduct generated within the group
discussions, focusing on the language used to encapsulate each principle, the
definitions attached, and the public office holders to which they should be applied.
This chapter also considers the apparent relative importance of the different
principles and the linkages between them in respondents’ minds. The next chapter
(Chapter 4) focuses on how the groups applied the principles they thought mattered
when they were confronted with the behaviour described in the scenarios. Chapter
5, the final chapter, reflects on the main findings of the research.

National Centre for Social Research
6

National Centre for Social Research
7
2 WHY STANDARDS MATTER FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
HOLDERS
One of the main points of agreement among participants in this study was on the
importance of having some set of guidelines or standards to regulate the conduct of
public office holders. While there was a mixture of views both about the scope of
such standards and about whether all public office holders should be subject to the
same set of standards, there was near unanimous agreement that some set of
standards should be upheld.
In this chapter we explain why nearly everyone says it is important that public office
holders should uphold standards. We then go on to analyse the mix of views about
what it is reckoned the scope of those standards should be and to whom they should
apply. Here, the chapter will focus on two important points. First, should all public
office holders be expected to uphold the same standards, regardless of the nature of
their role, or should different standards apply to different office holders? Second,
should whatever standards that exist apply to all aspects of a public office holder’s
behaviour or only to their conduct in office?
2.1 The importance of standards
There was general agreement on the importance of having some criteria by which to
monitor and judge the behaviour of public office holders. Throughout discussions,
the utility of some kind of ‘baseline’, some ‘set of rules’ or ‘guidelines’, some ‘code of
practice’ was recurrently underscored. While some stressed the importance of
standards for all citizens, regardless of their role in life, the general view was that
there should either be greater scrutiny of, or wider standards of conduct, applied to
the conduct of those in public office.
The support for standards rested mainly on what were seen to be the greater
ramifications of improper conduct while in public office. Certain aspects of the role,
in particular, were seen to necessitate standards – among them the capacity to
provide leadership and guidance while in public office, the level of responsibility or
power awarded to public office holders, and their involvement in setting standards
and passing legislation for society in general. The belief that public office holders
were employees of the public and therefore subject to public scrutiny was also
common. These views are discussed in depth in the remainder of this section.
2.1.1 The potential to be a role model
The potential for public office holders to be seen as role models for the general public
was felt to be one of the main reasons for ensuring that their behaviour was morally
or ethically correct. While leadership was seen to be an important principle of
conduct in its own right (and discussed in the next chapter), the potential for public
office holders to be in the public eye, to provide guidance on appropriate conduct
and - through their actions – to influence the behaviour of the general public were all
used to justify the argument for greater monitoring of their conduct. Emphasis was

National Centre for Social Research
8
placed on how public office holders – especially, though not exclusively, elected
politicians – have the potential to ‘set a good example for society’ or how they can
‘govern by example’. It was felt that the general public automatically look to people in
positions of power for guidance on how to conduct their affairs, and that
inappropriate or unethical behaviour in politicians could ultimately lead to a
lowering of standards amongst the general public.
“They still have to act as a role model don’t they, they do act as a role model.
Whether you like it or not you look at them and if they do things you kind of
think – perhaps subconsciously – ‘well then I can do that’ so they’re in the
public eye and they should act accordingly”
(Male, 62 yrs, degree level & above, public sector employee, no party
affiliation, city)
Particular weight was attached to a perceived role for public office holders in setting
appropriate ethical or moral standards for children or young people. To ensure that
the right values were communicated, it was argued that society must ensure that the
behaviour of public office holders is ‘whiter than white’. Such attitudes clearly
communicate a fear that inappropriate behaviour in public office holders could
influence the moral code of children and young adults.
“Well, in my opinion, someone who is governing the country, take [Name of
Cabinet member] as an example, the [Name of Cabinet position] …I've got a
young son and an older son, how can I expect my young son to look up to a
man like that who has got no moral values. In my opinion it's just as
important to have moral values as anything else…I don't mean him in
particular, I was just using him as an instance”
(Female, 50 yrs, GCSE & below, housewife, SNP supporter, town)
2.1.2 The level of responsibility and power awarded
The level of power or responsibility awarded public office holders by the general
public was seen to necessitate the imposition of some standards of conduct in
carrying out that role. In this respect, it was suggested that public office holders
should not only be open to scrutiny but that ideally their behaviour should always be
appropriate, moral and correct. This, for some, was seen as the only way of ensuring
that the public could have confidence in the decision-making powers of public
institutions. An example that was recurrently cited referred to the current conflict in
Afghanistan. It was argued that if public office holders – in this case the incumbent
government – had the power to take the country to war, then the public had to be
assured that their decision making was not flawed. The main way of ensuring this
was to make certain that public office holders were of sound character – through the
general monitoring of their behaviour through standards.
It was also argued that there was a need to monitor how public office holders
exercised power to ensure that it was not abused. Using this logic, office holders
were seen first and foremost as human beings and, therefore, likely to be prone to

National Centre for Social Research
9
self-interest or at least occasional error. Consequently, standards were necessary to
ensure improper or inappropriate conduct was addressed.
“I think they’re human like all of us, they’re all self interested you know so
you need those regulations and rules in place and proper accountability and
supervision so that they can be shown and seen to do their job properly”
(Male, 33 yrs, degreee & above, public sector employee, Liberal
Democrat supporter, city)
2.1.3 Involvement in setting standards for society
The importance of monitoring and regulating the conduct of those in public office
was also justified by their involvement – especially that of elected national politicians
– in developing legislation that in effect stipulates how the general public should
conduct themselves. It was suggested that an important prerequisite to making
decisions about what sorts of conduct were appropriate for the general public was to
ensure that one’s own behaviour is beyond question. Allied to this view was the
belief that public office holders should be extra vigilant in adhering to the laws and
ethics that were enshrined in legislation. As one respondent put it, ‘they have to
practise what they preach’. These attitudes were generally fuelled by numerous
examples of where it was judged that public office holders had acted in a duplicitous
way, promoting one set of standards for the general public but clearly contravening
those standards through their own conduct. Such examples were portrayed as a
major breach of trust.
“If they’re there to make the rules so to speak, then I think they should have a
responsibility to have to maintain the rules themselves – after all, you cannot
make rules for others if you’re not prepared to live by them yourself”
(Female, 51 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector
employee, Conservative supporter, rural)
Here, again, the need to set an example to the public and to children by adhering to
the established ethical standards of conduct was seen to be important
“And at – at the end of the day, if you’re saying to – if you’re saying to the
youngsters ‘well, you have to do this and you mustn’t do that’, and then
immediately go out and do it yourself, you’re nothing but a hypocrite, it’s
just – you know, not – not acceptable – sorry, no way”
(Female, 50 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector
employed, Conservative supporter, rural)
2.1.4 The need to be accountable
The view that public office holders are ‘employees of the public’ was also used as a
rationale for monitoring and regulating their behaviour. There was some belief that
because public institutions - particularly the salary of public office holders - were
paid for by tax revenue, this placed a ‘public duty’ on office holders to behave in an

National Centre for Social Research
10
ethical way. Accountability was a key issue for respondents here, the logic being
that if public office holders were ‘paid for’ by the public then the public had ‘a right’ to
expect certain standards of behaviour. The very fact that the public office holders
were financed through public taxes was sufficient for some to mean that their
behaviour should be open to public scrutiny and regulated by the public. This was
seen by some to be an important way of ensuring that the public got ‘value for money’.
The importance of accountability also extended beyond certifying that salaries paid
to public office holders were well deserved and well spent. Rather, it was also
apparent in a more general concern that public funds were utilised fairly and
properly. In this respect, the potential for abuse of public funds was seen as one of
the primary justifications for the imposition of standards of conduct on public office
holders. These two points are illustrated within the dialogue shown below.
M8 Just ‘cos they’re employed really by the people and whereas
we in our jobs have to keep a certain standard to keep our
jobs they should have to keep standards themselves ‘cos
they’re accountable to us.
M4 Well there’s a lot of areas for abuse I mean they’ve got so
much power, so many things that – I don’t know you get
certain benefits as well. You need to keep an eye on them
and they need to be accountable if they use those benefits in
the way they shouldn’t because it’s public money they’re
using at the end of the day.
(Group: 31-50 yrs, degree level & above, city)
Given that accountability was one of the main justifications for the imposition of
standards on public office holders, it is unsurprising that it features as one of the
principles of good conduct raised by group participants. This is discussed in more
detail in Chapter 3. However, there was some evidence to suggest that the support
for standards was not always rooted in a concern that public funds were utilised
efficiently and fairly. Rather, it appeared at times as if standards were important
here because they were one of the only ways that the general public could exact
power over public office holders – especially elected politicians. In this sense, the
imposition of standards was important in and of itself because of the sense of control
they gave the general public to influence the workings of the state.
2.2 Trust and confidence in public office holders
If being a role model, the level of responsibility and power, involvement in setting
standards, and the need for accountability were the reasons that were most
commonly offered explicitly as to why standards in public life need to be regulated,
it was also very clear that there was an important implicit motivation in many
people’s minds – that there was little trust and confidence that public office holders
currently behave in an appropriate manner.

National Centre for Social Research
11
2.2.1
Views expressed about political trust
Discussions about how public office holders behave invariably unleashed a torrent of
views about political trust. Indeed, much of the discussion about standards of
conduct was couched in a general cynicism about public office holders. At the heart
of most discussions was distrust of elected politicians, and this distrust was evident
in all groups, regardless of age, gender, educational attainment or party affiliation.
Reports of alleged dishonesty amongst elected public office holders were recurrent.
In particular many respondents felt that they could not trust a politician’s word. It
was argued that politicians would promise anything in order to gain public office but
that very few promises were ever honoured. Here lack of trust was very clearly
rooted in dissatisfaction with the policies of incumbent administrations – at both
national and local level – particularly when policies were not seen to reflect the
pledges that politicians gave during election campaigns, a point which this extract
illustrates:
F5 They spout it out, we’re going to give you this, that and the
other, and they give you absolutely nothing. Make all these
promises and they don’t mean any of them.
F3 They just promise things for the vote, and then once the
vote’s been cast, they seem to forget
F5 They all suffer from senile dementia when it comes to
actually keeping their promises, don’t they?
(Group: 31-50 yrs, GCSE or below, rural)
Distrust of elected politicians was also linked to various ‘scandals’ and ‘bad behaviour’
reported in the media. Across the six locations covered by the groups, national and
local examples were offered as proof of why politicians were not worthy of trust.
There was a general perception that elected public office holders were ‘dishonest’,
‘hypocritical’, ‘corrupt’, prone to ‘sleaze’ or ‘embezzlement’, and were generally
portrayed as individuals who are governed by self interest, or the interests of their
party or donors.
However lack of trust in elected politicians was not universal. There was some belief
that many politicians were worthy of respect and admiration. The problem was, it
was suggested, that the behaviour of a handful of politicians had brought the whole
profession into disrepute. Proponents of this view argued that each politician should
be judged on individual worth, and questioned the benefits of the general cynicism
that dominated much of the discussion within the groups.
“Well I think that all politicians I mean they start off with good faith, you
know, but somewhere along the line – well not all of them I mean just the few
– I mean they might sort of fall along the wayside. And because of this one or
two that do so, the whole [of] politicians are branded as being, you know – I
think it’s not all politicians, it’s just only one or two”
(Male, 69 yrs, degree level & above, retired, no party affiliation, city)

National Centre for Social Research
12
The media were widely felt to encourage public distrust in elected public office
holders. Though clearly valued as the ‘watchdog’ of public affairs it was felt that
sometimes the sheer quantity of attention shown to the public and private lives of
politicians meant that issues were often ‘blown out of proportion’, which only served to
induce a further loss of confidence. Allied to this view was the belief that the media
generally presented a partial view of elected politicians by concentrating only on bad
or improper conduct. It was said to be rare for news media to highlight the good
conduct of elected politicians – the so-called ‘unsung heroes’:
“The thing is, you’re asking us for good points, and the thing is there are
probably a lot with a lot of people, but those things don’t make the headlines.
It’s only the bad that the press are interested in. And so it’s rammed down
our throats in the papers and on the television, but there’s never any good, I
mean we always say there’s never any good news on the television or in the
paper. Because the press are not interested in that, it doesn’t sell the
newspapers”
(Female, 55 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector
employee, no party affiliation, rural)
Public attitudes towards unelected public office holders were, in the main, less
negative and opinion about them within groups tended to be more varied. While
respondents were not always explicit about whether their views referred to elected
or appointed public office holders, some did draw a distinction between appointed
public office holders and those who are elected to office. This distinction typically
rested on whether or not holding a particular office could be seen to serve one’s own
interest. Using this logic, elected public office holders were seen – in the main – to be
‘lining their own pockets’, while appointed public office holders – such as those
running the NHS or those in charge of the police - were largely seen to be doing a job
for the public good, and consequently, worthy of greater trust.
“I think I trust more the people that have been appointed like the heads of
NHS trusts but the politicians as you said have their own – a lot of times
they go into politics to you know for their egos maybe sometimes so those I
don’t trust very much at all. The appointed people, head of departments and
things like that I trust more so....”
(Male, 33 yrs, degree level & above, private sector employee,
Conservative supporter, city)
However, distrust of appointed public office holders was also evident – though it
was more equivocal and generally for altogether different reasons to those expressed
about elected politicians. Distrust of appointed office holders sometimes resulted
from an unsatisfactory experience of that service or agency – perhaps with the health
service or the police service. One young black man, for example, voiced his lack of
confidence in the police generally because he was repeatedly stopped and
questioned by local police for no apparent reason. Others spoke of how
unsatisfactory experiences of public services – such as hospitals, schools or the
railways - had led them to question the motives of those in charge of them. In
addition, it was felt that the trustworthiness of an appointed public office holder was
dependent on how they were appointed – in particular who appointed them and

National Centre for Social Research
13
under what circumstances. Of chief concern here was the motivation behind such
appointments. The value of appointments that were made for reasons other than
merit was questioned, not least because such a person may not be able to properly
fulfil the demands of a role. The respondent quoted above went on to argue:
“…if they were appointed for political reasons then I wouldn’t trust them, if
they were kind of one of [Name of politician]’s mates then I’d probably see
something behind that but if they came from a good background, had good
merit and experience then yeah I’d trust them more. I think there’s a lot of
that goes on now with people. My personal opinion [is] that people are
appointed for favours, just either for money or for the fact that they’ve
supported the government in a certain way”
(Male, 33 yrs, degree level & above, private sector employee,
Conservative supporter, city)
It was exceptional for low trust or confidence in public office holders to be attributed
to reasons other than those described above. However, there was some evidence to
suggest that trust was connected to knowledge of public office holders – either
elected or appointed. It was said to be difficult to have trust in certain appointed
public office holders – like the head of the local police force – without knowing who
that person was and it was felt that, in general, information about who held such
positions was not widely known. The influence of knowledge on trust was also
evident amongst younger respondents and those with the lowest educational
attainment – particularly where these combined within the same group discussion.
Here there was little knowledge of who held various public offices – apart from
perhaps those who held prominent national elected posts - such as the Prime
Minister. It was suggested here that not knowing who was in public office meant
that it was difficult to have any sense of trust or confidence in them. In this sense,
confidence and trust appear to be qualities that a public office holder can earn
through personal reputation rather than ones that are automatically awarded.
In the discussions held with older respondents, there was recurrent mention of a
declining level of trust and confidence over recent years. While, not exclusive to this
age group, and not universally supported within it, it was common for older
respondents to mention that present levels of trust and confidence in public office
holders compared most unfavourably with that of previous generations. This was
typically blamed on a perceived drop in public standards – not just for public office
holders – but amongst the general public as well. Life in modern Britain was seen to
be less courteous and altogether less honourable than it was in the mid-twentieth
century.
2.2.2 Other research on political trust
The evidence of widespread and growing distrust of politicians revealed by the focus
groups is well in line with the findings of survey research into this topic in recent
years (see especially, Bromley, Curtice and Seyd, 2001). This is illustrated by the
following table which shows the answers that have been given over the last quarter
of the century when people have been asked:-

National Centre for Social Research
14
How much do you trust British governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above the
interests of their own political party, just about always, most of the time, only some of the time, or almost
never?
1974 1986 1987a 1987b 1991 1994
Trust governments % % % % % %
Just about always/most
of the time
39 38 37 47 33 24
Only some of the
time/almost never
57 57 60 52 63 73
1996 1997a 1997b 1998 2000 2001
Trust governments % % % % % %
Just about always/most
of the time
22 25 33 29 16 28
Only some of the
time/almost never
75 71 65 69 83 70
Source: British Social Attitudes survey except 1974: Political Action Study, 1987b, 1997b, British Election Study. 1987a and
1997a were undertaken before that year’s general election, while 1987b, 1997b and 2001 were conducted after the election in
that year.
The British public has never been that trustful of their politicians. Thus when this
first question was first asked by the Political Action
Study in 1974 (Marsh, 1977),
only two in five said that they trusted governments just about always or most of the
time. Still at least that figure showed little sign of slippage until the 1990s. However
it then fell to just one in four, finally reaching an all-time low of 16% in 2000.
True, the 2001 reading in the table appears to suggest that the tide might have begun
to be turned. But a closer reading indicates that reported levels of trust are
consistently higher immediately after a general election. Thus there was a ten point
rise in the level of trust in the immediate wake of the 1987 general election and a
similar eight point increase in 1997. So the crucial comparison to make is that the
2001 reading of 28%, taken immediately after that year's general election, is five
points lower than the post-1997 election reading and no less than 19 points lower
than the equivalent figure for 1987.
Equally, however, the same survey series also suggests that the public does draw a
distinction between politicians and other public office holders. Thus no less than
three in five say that they trust ‘British police not to bend the rules in trying to get a
conviction’ ‘just about always’ or ‘most of the time’, far higher than the 16% who, in
the same survey in 2000, trusted governments to put the interests of the nation first.
Moreover as the next table shows there is also no evidence that trust in the police has
declined over the last decade. And while, at around a third, the proportion who say
that they would trust ‘top civil servants to stand firm against a minister who wants
to provide false information to parliament’ is lower than the proportion who say that
they trust the police, it is still around the twice the proportion who trust
governments.

National Centre for Social Research
15
% trust just about
always/most of the time
1987 1991 1994 1996 1998 2000
Police 52 49 47 51 48 59
Civil Servants 47 na 27 28 na 35
Source: British Social Attitudes survey except 1987, British Election Study.
Low and declining trust in politicians does not necessarily have anything to do with
perceptions of the standards of conduct of office holders. They may reflect long-run
social changes which mean that citizens are less deferential and more critical, are less
likely to be emotionally tied to politicians, and less inclined to trust each other let
alone major institutions (see also Putnam, Pharr and Dalton, 2000). But the fact that
trust in the police has not declined in recent years while that in politicians has, is one
indication that there might be reason to doubt the validity of such explanations.
Indeed in their analysis Bromley, Curtice and Seyd (2001) conclude that such
explanations do little to account for the decline in political trust in recent years.
Rather they suggest the explanation lies primarily in the poor impressions that voters
have been receiving from politicians, not least from the numerous allegations of
'sleaze'. That reported wrongdoing by politicians can affect trust in government has
also been argued by Pharr (2000) in her analysis of the Japanese case and della Porta
(2000) in her examination of Italy. Little wonder then that the need for standards in
public life and lack of trust in politicians appear to have been closely associated in
the minds of the focus group participants.
2.3 The scope of standards in public office
This section examines the views expressed in the focus groups about the potential
scope of standards for those in public life. It deals with what are the two main issues
in this regard. First, it will explore whether standards are considered important for
all public office holders, irrespective of the nature of their role or how they attain it.
Here the public’s view is far from exact and though respondents recurrently
emphasised the importance of a blanket approach to regulation of conduct, aspects of
their discussion suggested that scrutiny of conduct was more important for some
office holders than for others. Second, this section recounts views expressed about
the areas of a public office holder’s life that should be subject to standards. This
deals specifically with the question of whether public office holders should be held
publicly accountable for their private conduct.
2.3.1 Are standards important for all public office holders?
The general view was that it was important to have standards for all types of office
holders – whether elected or appointed. This view was sometimes rooted in
pessimism about the motives of all types of public office holders, exemplified by
statements like ‘they’re all as bad as each other’. Similarly, the need for accountability
was generally seen as universally important, regardless of the nature of one’s public
role.
However, the nature of the reasons given to justify the imposition of standards
suggests that they are more applicable to particular types of office holders. For
example, not all public office holders are in the public eye and therefore the potential
for them to be ‘role models’ is somewhat limited. This would seem to imply that

National Centre for Social Research
16
standards are then less important for public office holders who are not in the public
gaze, like some civil servants for example. There is some evidence to support this,
but also views that would contradict it. For instance, there was some belief that
standards are more important for those not in the public eye, the ‘off stage’ public
office holders as they were described, because the potential for abuse of power was
seen to be greater amongst them.
Other factors too suggest that the importance of standards may not be universal. For
instance, not all public office holders, not even all elected public office holders, have
a role in setting standards for society, something that is generally limited to members
of national legislative bodies. This suggests that standards are more important for
Members of Parliament (in Westminster or elsewhere). Other views expressed lend
some support to this. For example, there was some belief that standards were more
important for those with very high levels of responsibility, for example, those who
had the power to take the country to war or the influence to effect change on
economic circumstances. In this sense, standards were seen as more important for
people who had the power to affect the lives of a large number of people. Equally, it
was argued that standards were more important the greater the size of a politician’s
mandate, demonstrated by the size of electorate. The level of salary earned was also
deemed to be a factor that determined the extent to which a public office holder’s
conduct should be subject to scrutiny. However, such views did not go
unchallenged by those who advocated the equal importance of standards for all
public office holders – whatever the level of their responsibility or the type of office
held. Here issues of mandate, power or salary were considered less important than
the need for all public office holders to conduct their role in an ethical manner. This
extract from one of the groups illustrates the different types of views expressed in
relation to this issue.
M7 You see, the people in a local election, right - just say one of
us ran for election, we got elected, right, there's maybe 10-
15,000 people elected us. [Name of politician] has millions
that voted for him to get him into a job.
F2 It still doesn't make any difference, it's the same job only at
a different level.
M7 It's not the same job. A local councillor can't say, right,
you're going to Africa, you're going to die.
F2 But we're not talking about the decisions, we're talking
about the person, their honesty, their integrity. It should be
exactly the same all over the board, whether you're a local
councillor or whether you're a politician.
M7 But I'm not debating that, I'm just saying it's easier to
accept a flaw in a local councillor. There shouldn't be a
difference but there is and I'd find it a lot easier to accept a
flaw in somebody who is doing the job because they care
about the job and on a part-time basis than somebody who is
getting paid a hell of a lot of money and he doesn't give a
shit about you

National Centre for Social Research
17
(Group: 31-50 yrs, GCSE or below, town)
2.3.2 Should standards be set for all types of conduct?
While there was agreement on the importance of standards, even if there was some
debate about for which types of office holders those standards were most important,
there was less consensus on the types of conduct that should be subject to standards.
In general, any conduct or behaviour involved in carrying out the duties of public
office was seen to be within the jurisdiction of standards and therefore should be
subject to scrutiny. The kinds of standards that were felt applicable to conduct in
public life are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. However, it was how the conduct of
office holders in other spheres of life should be treated that attracted some of the
most heated debate within the groups.
In the course of discussions on this issue, three sets of opinion emerged. First, there
was the view that all aspects of a public office holder’s conduct should be subject to
scrutiny. Here, support for the extension of public standards of conduct to the
private sphere was unequivocal. Because of the status awarded to public office
holders – particularly those within the public gaze – it was felt to be unwise to
exclude any aspect of an individual’s conduct that could have a bearing on their
public role. In this respect, the insistence on being ‘whiter than white’ was seen to
encompass a public office holder’s entire life. It was argued that the public and
private spheres were indivisible, and that any improper conduct in the private
sphere would eventually have repercussions for one’s public office. There was some
belief that taking up public office required one to abstain or eschew certain types of
conduct that may be deemed publicly unacceptable. This was a point made
particularly by younger respondents, who argued that they often had to change
aspects of their appearance or manner in order to succeed in a particular job and,
consequently, expected public office holders to do the same.
Here, again, the nature of the role of public office holders – as employees of the
public – was used to justify the investigation of all conduct, whether public or
private. Indeed, some went so far as to argue that a person should not take on a
public role unless they were prepared to accept such scrutiny of their private affairs
and, in this vein, perceived it to be in the public’s interest and ‘right’ to know
everything about the life of a public office holder.
M1 If they’re taking massive salaries home then they’re going to
have to live by the rules. It may be unfair in the climate
we’re living at, but that’s just the way it is. If you take the
big bucks you’ve got to earn them.
M2 If you earn a big pay you should do it by the rules.
M3 And you have opted to go for that position, so you know
you’re going to be in the spotlight, and obviously you know
you’re going to get paid well for it. But if you’ve got any
skeletons in that cupboard you want to hide, then don’t go
for that job. It’s as simple as that.

National Centre for Social Research
18
(Group: 31-50yrs, above GCSE & below degree, town)
An opposing view - advocating the complete separation of the public role from one’s
private life – was also voiced within the group discussions. Proponents of this view
placed very little importance on the private affairs of public office holders and
emphasised the human nature of office holders and their right as individuals to a
private life – the right ‘to let their hair down’ – as it was described on occasion. There
was a strong emphasis on the need for accountability for one’s conduct while
carrying out a public role, but outside of this it was felt that there was no justification
for intruding into private affairs.
“[That private conduct matters] Is like saying that you wouldn’t take a car to
that mechanic because he can’t be a good mechanic, because he slept with a
prostitute last week. Ridiculous. Total stupidity.”
(Male, 45 yrs, GCSE or below, private sector employee, Labour
supporter, city)
“I don't think personally it should make a difference whether a politician is
gay or not, that's a totally separate subject - what they do with their private
life is entirely up to them…they're just a human being like anyone else,
they're entitled to have their own private life. Just because they hold a senior
position in the country doesn't mean to say we should judge them on their
sexuality or their private life”
(Male, 21 yrs, GCSE or below, private sector, no party affiliation,
rural)
Such views were sometimes grounded in a sense of pragmatism that, even if the
public disagreed with certain lifestyles or conduct, public censure of such behaviour
would only serve to dissuade otherwise effective individuals from taking up public
office. In this respect, it was argued that the country could suffer from having
unrealistic expectations of public office holders and making unreasonable demands
of their conduct.
One aspect of private life that was always seen to be irrelevant was the conduct of
close family members - such as a child or a partner – in some circumstances
regardless of the nature of their conduct.
However, it was exceptional for opinion to be firmly rooted in either one of these
extremes. The attitudes expressed about the relevance of a public office holder’s
private conduct were instead usually much more conditional. It is evident that there
was general support for the separation of the public role from the private life of
public office holders, except in certain circumstances. These related to:
•
Legality
There was a recurrent view that unless a public office holder was engaged in
illegal activity in their private life then this aspect of conduct should be
outside the scope of standards. In this sense, public office holders were

National Centre for Social Research
19
expected to be honest in their private affairs, and not harmful to other people
or their property. This was usually raised in relation to sexual activity, or any
use of illegal substances.
“For example, if he’s doing anything sexually, or she, sorry, if the politician’s
doing anything sexually that’s illegal, you know, with under-age children,
or animals, you know, then yes, we need to know. But if it’s with a
consenting adult then it doesn’t affect, I mean it doesn’t stop him doing his
job, then you know, I don’t think it’s important that we should be told.”
(Male, 45 yrs, GCSE or below, private sector employee, Labour party
supporter, city)
•
Relevance to the role
There was a recurrent view that where an individual’s private life may have a
bearing on their public role then it was in the public interest to know about it,
and to expect certain standards of behaviour. However, given that the
aspects of private life deemed relevant would differ considerably between
each public office holder, there was broad acknowledgement that in practice
such a requirement would be difficult to implement. Some felt there should
be a general provision on public office holders to behave ethically in their
private lives where they judged it to have a bearing on their public role. But
again the practicality of such guidance, and the potential for inconsistency in
how it was applied, was clearly recognised.
Another aspect of this view referred not to a requirement for public office
holders to behave ethically in private but to be open about aspects of their
private life that may have relevance to their public role. This was seen to
have particular relevance for elected politicians.
•
Effect on competence or performance
Another instance where it was felt that a public office holders’ private affairs
should be subject to standards and scrutiny was when private conduct could
have an impact on an individual’s ability to perform their public role. In this
respect, as long as an individual’s private life did not impinge upon their
public responsibilities or their decision making capabilities, then what
happened ‘behind closed doors’ was seen to be irrelevant – in some
circumstances regardless of the nature of such conduct.
“If you’re talking private life I think that’s got nothing to do with the rest of
– what they want to do after they’ve finished work or anything like that is
entirely up to them. If it affects their ability to do the job, yes, then the public
should know”
(Male, 58 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector employee,
no party affiliation, city)
Again, the difficulty of setting any general standard that could assess whether
an aspect of private life would affect the performance of a public office holder
was acknowledged. However, the role of the media was cast in a damaging

National Centre for Social Research
20
light in this context by some respondents. In this view it was argued that
being the subject of extensive media interest has the potential to detrimentally
affect the performance of a public office holder in performing their duty.
•
Hypocrisy
In general, it was felt that there should be consistency between the public and
private conduct of office holders and that every attempt should be made to
avoid being duplicitous. For instance, where private conduct was seen to
contradict views expressed in public then this was considered unacceptable.
Conversely, where an individual’s private life or conduct did not contradict
their public position, then it was felt that their private life should remain their
own.
“You know, you need somebody that is actually going to stand behind what
they’re talking about for the public to believe in what they’re talking about
really. If, in their private lives, their family lives, the fact that somebody goes
and sleeps with 15 people a week, is their own business. Unless they are
actually saying, ‘we’re all for family life and you know the marriage and the
two kids at school’ and all of that. Then that would actually come into
question, because he’s not actually, or she is not actually, practising what
they preach really”
(Female, 33 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector
employee, no party affiliation, city)
•
Discretion
Discretion about private conduct – especially where it was judged to be
morally questionable – was seen to be an admirable quality in public office
holders. Indeed, there was some suggestion that the level of discretion
shown by the office holder affected judgment about whether an aspect of
private conduct was acceptable. This was seen to be particularly relevant to
elected politicians, or appointed public office holders who were in a ‘high
profile position’. Much the concern here related to the potential for public
office holders to be a role model to society and especially to children. It was
suggested by some that public office holders had the right to certain lifestyles
or types of behaviour and that these should be acceptable to the general
public - as long as they took place in private. Where office holders ‘flaunted’
aspects of their private life that may be controversial, this was seen by some
to be improper.
“It doesn’t matter what the politician gets up to in his private life to me, but
I don’t want to see it, I don’t want to know about it, you know? A bit of
discretion wouldn’t go amiss I think”
(Male, 45 yrs, GCSE or below, private sector employee, Labour
supporter, city)
“Well it doesn’t bother me [a politician being gay] in that sense but the point
I’m trying to make is if… he was constantly in the public eyes, the papers are
saying ‘so and so was spotted with somebody’ I mean that wouldn’t go down

National Centre for Social Research
21
well, I don’t think that’s very acceptable…we have standards, we all set
standards and we all expect certain things. I think if the papers and the news
and everything else is constantly going on about people like that then it takes
the foundations from the likes of the schools trying to teach morality and
standards of behaviour. When they suddenly say ‘well the people running
this bloody country can get away with this’ and it just filters down right
through society”
(Male, 50 yrs, degree level & above, public sector employee, Labour
supporter, city)
For the most part, there was no definite patterning to the attitudes expressed about
the relevance of private conduct to a public role. Respondents of the same gender,
party identification, and educational attainment generally held mixed, if not
opposing, views on these issues. Groups held in both rural and urban areas
appeared to be similarly diverse in the attitudes expressed. However, there is
evidence to suggest that the more ‘liberal’ attitudes, that argue for the complete
separation of private and public conduct, or at least that private conduct is only
relevant in certain circumstances, were primarily located amongst in the younger age
groups. While there were equally tolerant views voiced within the discussions held
with those aged over 50, the tone of debate in these groups was least permissive
when compared with the discussions held with younger members of the public. This
is wholly consistent with survey evidence that suggests that younger people are
indeed more liberal than their elders on issues of private morality (Park, 2000).
It is against this backdrop that respondents set out the types of standards that should
apply to the public conduct of office holders. The next chapter goes on to explore
these in detail.

National Centre for Social Research
22
2.4 Key conclusions of Chapter 2
1. The public clearly place great importance on the maintenance of standards in
public life, and offer a variety of justifications, including:
-
the capacity to provide guidance and leadership
-
the level of power or responsibility awarded to public office
holders
-
involvement in setting standards and passing legislation for
society in general
-
the need to be accountable.
2. Views of respondents, regardless of age, educational attainment levels,
gender or party affiliation demonstrated a cynicism towards and distrust in
elected politicians. This viewpoint permeates and provides an undercurrent
in many areas of attitudes towards standards of conduct in this study.
3. However, despite this broad agreement on the importance of standards, there
was less consensus on the scope of any standards of conduct in public life.
4. There were mixed views about whether all public office holders should be
subject to the same level of scrutiny.
5. Equally, there was a diversity of opinion about whether private conduct
should be subjected to the public gaze, the general view being that it all
depends on whether private behaviour is legal, discreet, immaterial to the
performance of a person’s public role and not at variance with publicly stated
views.

National Centre for Social Research
23
3 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD CONDUCT
This study had two main aims. The first was to discover what the public considers to
be the principles that should be upheld in public life. The second was to examine
what types of conduct they did and did not find acceptable. The following two
chapters address these two questions in turn. This chapter describes the principles of
good conduct that emerged during the group discussions. The following chapter
explores how those principles were applied when respondents were asked to discuss
the acceptability or otherwise of certain behaviours depicted in three scenarios.
This chapter examines all of the principles suggested in the course of discussions. It
explores the idioms used to encapsulate behaviour, concentrating on the language
used and the meanings attached. It also discusses both the apparent relative
importance of the different principles that were raised and the linkages between
these principles in respondents’ minds. A key consideration is whether the types of
conduct thought relevant by the general public correspond with that implied by the
Seven Principles formulated by the Committee. We find that while there is much in
common between the standards of conduct thought important by respondents and
the principles laid down by the Committee, respondents sometimes adopted a wider
definition of what a principle meant than that employed by the Committee.
Respondents also sometimes used different language to describe a principle than that
employed by the Committee.
3.1 How principles were generated
Before looking at the principles of good conduct suggested within the groups, it is
worth reflecting on how they were elicited. The group discussions were structured
such that respondents were encouraged throughout to suggest aspects of conduct for
which standards should exist, and indeed to define what might constitute principles
or standards of good conduct. Four ‘tools’ were employed in every group to
encourage such discussion. At the outset of the groups, participants were asked in a
very general way what aspects of conduct should be subject to standards. This was
followed by a brainstorming exercise in which participants were encouraged to offer
recent examples of good or bad conduct in public office. The aim here was to use
real situations in order to generate an understanding of what conduct was thought
acceptable or unacceptable, and to identify any key principles of behaviour thought
relevant. This brainstorming also facilitated a discussion of the relative importance
of examples given and the principles that were at the heart of the different conducts
discussed. The third element of the approach used scenarios or vignettes to test how
standards developed early on in the groups were employed in practice (albeit in
fictitious circumstances). Finally, towards the end of the group discussion,
participants were asked to outline what they felt were the key characteristics of a
good public office holder.
The main purpose of this approach was to give respondents ample opportunity to
suggest relevant aspects of behaviour or to define principles of good conduct. It was
common for most principles and relevant aspects of conduct to emerge early on in
the discussions, especially once the brainstorming exercise had been completed. The

National Centre for Social Research
24
rest of the discussion allowed respondents to develop and clarify these. In this sense,
the groups allowed for deliberation, giving the opportunity for reflection on and
articulation of personal preferences about what standards of conduct are relevant to
public office holders, and also the chance to debate with others what is and is not
appropriate behaviour for a public office holder. This process of development did
vary somewhat depending on the educational attainment of participants (groups
were structured so that they included respondents of a similar education level).
Groups held with the more highly educated – especially those at degree level –
presented a wide range of principles at the outset of the discussion, with very little
need for prompting or probing to tease out subtleties. Groups with less educated
respondents – particularly those with few or no qualifications - were initially
somewhat limited in their conception of standards and principles, often surmising
that in essence good conduct constituted honest conduct. Here the projective
techniques – the brainstorming and the scenarios - were invaluable in developing
respondents’ thinking about principles of good conduct.
3.2 The definition of principles of good conduct
This section describes the standards of good conduct that emerged from the focus
group discussions. They have been grouped according to the Seven Principles of
Public Life set out by the Committee. A particular aspect of conduct has been
attributed to one of the Seven Principles in two ways. The first is when respondents
make explicit reference to that principle when discussing conduct (i.e. ‘it is important
for a public office holder to be open and transparent’ or ‘honesty means not lying’).
Second, in the absence of an explicit statement, when the relationship between
conduct and principle is implied by the context of the discussion this is included(e.g.
when a discussion of leadership underscores the need for public office holders to set
an example).
The fact that the framework of the Seven Principles serves as a useful ‘ready made’
classification of the data collected is a testament to the degree of concordance
between the Committee’s principles and the range of public opinion expressed.
There was very little that emerged from the groups that cannot be related to the
Seven Principles. However, as will be demonstrated, the interpretation of some of
the individual principles was much broader than that adopted by the Seven
Principles. As a result, some aspects of public office holders’ behaviour thought by
respondents to be inappropriate currently fall outside the Committee’s remit. Also,
although the spirit of the Seven Principles is undoubtedly contained in the views
expressed within the groups, respondents’ understandings of what was implied by a
particular principle was sometimes at odds with that implied by the Seven
Principles. In order to facilitate comparison, we begin each of the following sub-
sections with the Committee’s definition of the relevant principle before discussing
respondents’ understanding of the principle and the language they used to describe
it. Then in Section 3.3 we compare the two systematically.
3.2.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should
not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or
their friends.

National Centre for Social Research
25
The importance of selflessness in public office was often emphasised, although the
term itself was rarely used in the course of discussions. A strong desire was
expressed for public office holders to be committed to the needs of the public and to
put those needs before their own. It was felt that public office holders should not
allow self-interest, or the interests of colleagues, family, friends or political allies to
take precedence. But at the same time, selflessness was often thought to imply much
more than just the avoidance of self-interested behaviour. Rather it encompassed
certain positive qualities. For example, the level of commitment shown towards
one’s constituents – in the case of elected politicians – or towards clients, customers,
community members or stakeholders if one was an appointed office holder was seen
to be an indication of how selfless a public office holder could be. In addition, those
who exhibited a caring attitude in how they went about their job were generally seen
to be more selfless. There was, however, a recurrent view that such motivation was
rare, particularly amongst elected politicians, though appointed office holders were
also seen to be at risk of being selfish.
“I mean why do they go in for politics, supposedly it's because you want to
serve the people, isn't it, but really it isn't, is it? It's because you want that
power and really… you should care, and you should want to serve your
country and you should want to make a difference.”
(Female, 27 yrs, degree level & above, student, Labour supporter, city)
Respondents’ views about selflessness at times strayed into discussions about the
duty of public office holders to do the best job possible (thereby ensuring that they
acted for the public good). It was felt that public office holders should always strive
to carry out their role to the best of their ability and they should be dutiful. Again,
important here was the level of commitment shown to a role and the dedication with
which tasks were carried out.
There was a general concern that public office holders did not always act with the
public’s needs in mind. There was a strong desire to see public funds utilised in an
efficient and equitable way, and in this respect, selflessness was construed as having
much in common with the requirement for public office holders to be fair or objective
– discussed below. So, it was expected that public office holders would not be
abusive of equipment, assets, publicly funded time, public funds, or privileges
awarded them in the execution of their role. Examples of where such transgressions
had occurred were recurrent, and implicated local and national office holders.
However, the sentiment is perhaps best illustrated by the account given in one group
of a civil servant who had been fired from his post for viewing pornographic images
on his computer during work hours. What is interesting here was that the man was
not criticised by group members for viewing pornography per se but because he did
so during work hours, when he was being paid a salary by the public and using
publicly funded equipment. This extract from that discussion illustrates the point:
M5 I’m not so bothered …that somebody’s decided to look at
that sort of thing on their computer at work… if it’s lawful
for them to do it, and they do it at home, I’ve got no problem
with that... But if they’re doing it while they’re at work,

National Centre for Social Research
26
during time that they’re getting paid to do a job, and using
facilities that are there to be used in different…
F2 It’s abusing the facilities that are available, which then is
the tax payer again, we pay taxes, we expect something
(Group: 31-50yrs, above GCSE & below degree, rural)
Selflessness was also very much connected in respondents’ accounts with a desire for
those in public office to be accessible. An accessible public office holder was
characterised as someone who is approachable, a person that one can talk to and
communicate with, and someone to whom the general public can relate. This extract
from a group compares the qualities of two local MPs in terms of their accessibility:
F8 They're on the sideline, the decent ones, like [Name of first
MP] and what have you.
F6 She does a lot of work for her constituents and you see her
out and about in [name of local constituency].
F7 She's up-front, isn't she?
F6 Yes, and she's visible too, do you know what I mean, to the
people who voted for her, whereas people like [Name of
second MP] who represents [Name of other local
constituency], you know, and get re-elected time after time
but he does absolutely nothing, people wouldn't even know
what he looked like if he didn't have his face on the front of
the [Name of local newspaper] once in a while.
(Group: 18-30 yrs old, degree level & above, city)
Implicit in this account – and in others like it – are two further aspects of selflessness
– the importance of keeping in touch with the needs of the public and the ability to
give voice to those needs. In the way they were articulated, these aspects were
applied exclusively to elected politicians.
Keeping in touch with the people
There was some belief that in order for a politician to perform their role correctly that
they should understand or be ‘tuned in’ to the values, beliefs and aspirations of local
people. Thus ‘keeping in touch with the people’ at ‘grass roots level’, and understanding
their needs, was construed as an important mechanism of selflessness. This aspect
emerged more strongly in locations outside of London – particularly rural areas -
where MPs were often seen as ‘going off to London’ and losing touch with where they
came from. Understanding the people meant having a real grasp of the people’s
values, concerns and expectations and at the same time being down to earth and not
‘in cloud cuckoo land’.
Those public office holders who were considered ‘in touch’ were those who were seen
to consult with and actively listen to people; those who encouraged feedback and

National Centre for Social Research
27
were receptive to it. There was great importance placed on listening in this way. For
some respondents, the personality or manner of public office holders also
communicated a greater or lesser appreciation of the public’s needs. This was
articulated in different ways. For instance, less educated respondents, who
sometimes described themselves as working class, favoured politicians who were
‘people like us’ and who were not ‘snobs’. Younger people expressed a preference for
politicians from their own age group, who they felt would have a better grasp of
their desires and concerns. Similarly, older respondents felt they had more in
common with older politicians, and additionally, that age brought a certain amount
of life experience and wisdom that could make for better understanding of
constituents’ needs.
Representing the views of the people
A distinction was drawn in many groups between being in touch with the opinions
of constituents, and giving proper representation to those views. It was argued that
a politician may appear to listen but may not then represent the electorate’s views, in
Parliament, for example. Thus, another way in which selflessness was judged was in
the degree to which a politician represented or gave ‘voice’ to the needs of
constituents. Here, the emphasis was on providing proper representation to the
views of one’s electorate – rather than promoting one’s own interests. Selfless
politicians were those who were seen to ‘represent the people who put them there’ or
who ‘put the views of the people forward’. Amongst the more highly educated
respondents, providing representation was described as a key aspect of the ‘contract’
of an elected politician, and the very ‘basis of democracy’. The following extract shows
how both being in tune with the needs of constituents, and representing those needs
were seen to be important aspects of being a selfless politician:
“They're supposed to be representing you….. those people get elected, don't
they, and so they should, you know, they've got a duty, an obligation to serve
the public and to do it they've got to know what the public want, they've got
to talk to the public, they've got to be available.”
(Male, 58 yrs, GCSE or below, unemployed & actively seeking work,
Labour supporter, city)
Though keeping in touch and the importance of providing representation were
generally portrayed as qualities that were applicable only to elected office holders, it
is likely that similar qualities would be applicable to appointed office holders,
though perhaps in a different manner. For example, this piece of research represents
an attempt by a set of appointed office holders to connect with and represent the
views of the public. This illustrates the tension that is sometimes evident between
respondent’s explicit reasoning and the potential application of a principle of
conduct, discussed further at the end of this chapter.
3.2.2 Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other
obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in
the performance of their official duties.

National Centre for Social Research
28
Integrity was a quality that was recurrently mentioned in the course of discussion, by
respondents of diverse circumstance. However, as a principle of good conduct, it
was perhaps the most ill defined. When prompted for definitions, terms like
‘decency’, ‘honour’, ‘honesty’, ‘self assurance’ or ‘trustworthiness’ were offered. Being
‘whiter than white’, a recurrent phrase throughout the groups, was a description used
in some discussions to denote integrity, but that term was also used to refer to
private morality. Respondents often floundered in their quest to define integrity or
used the term to denote a diverse range of qualities, which rarely corresponded to
the Committee’s notion of integrity:
F1 Integrity, I’ve just thought of that word! (Laughter) Damn
good.
Moderator: What do you mean by integrity?
F1 I don’t know just sounds good! No, that ties in a lot of
things doesn’t it? It’s like their honesty and you know…
how…
M3 Competent.
F1 Yeah, that they want to do their job well.
M3 Being selfless in their decision making. If they’re selfish
they’re not fully serving the people who they were elected to
serve.
F1 Exactly.
(Group: 18-30 yrs, degree level or above, rural)
In detailed probing for a definition, honesty and integrity were sometimes used
together to describe what good conduct should be. Respondents articulated a sense
that if a public office holder is honest, then they also have integrity. There was also a
sense that integrity meant sticking to your word. Integrity was also seen to imply
fairness in the conduct of duties, and here is closely aligned to principle of objectivity
or independence. A public office holder who is fair and honest was seen to be
demonstrating a form of integrity. In this way, integrity was viewed as just another
term implying honesty and fairness. For some, this included serving the public
without self-interest.
“Honesty implies the integrity, and – I don’t know, it’s the – if they’re being
honest with you, they’re doing what you’re expecting them to do, if that’s – if
that’s public office, the number one is serving the public and not the self-
interest”
(Male, 40 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, self employed, Liberal
Democrat supporter, rural)
The idea that integrity was associated with honour or not being open to influence
from people who are ‘seeking favours’ emerged only in some groups, particularly

National Centre for Social Research
29
those involving the older age groups or those with degree level qualifications or
above. Here, integrity was sometimes described as living by a set of principles
without wavering, and ‘standing up for what you believe in ‘:
“I think integrity and an ability even if you don’t agree with what’s being –
you know to say ‘I do not agree’. It’s a bit like you said about [name of
politician] who’s not one of my favourite politicians but the ability to say
‘this isn’t right, it’s morally wrong’. I think that makes a good politician.”
(Female, 62 yrs, degree level & above, private sector employee,
Labour supporter, city)
3.2.3 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
Objectivity was a principle of good conduct that emerged throughout the
discussions. However, rather than defining objective conduct, there was more
emphasis placed on what conduct should be avoided in order to maintain objectivity
or, as it was also described, ‘independence’. Definitions included not being corrupt,
not being open to influence, not using power for personal gain or interest, and not
abusing power (for whatever reason). It was summed up by one respondent as ‘not
doing favours for their mates’. More specifically, it was construed as not being open to
‘bribery’ or ‘back-handers’. Independence also implied a sense of ‘fairness’, which was
a central notion for respondents throughout the discussions.
“Somebody who in what they believe in, they’re not swayed and pulled from.
They believe in something but they’re not sort of swayed by people or bribed
by people. Somebody who won’t abuse their power, doesn’t take back-
handers….”
(Female, 53 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector
employed, Liberal Democrat supporter, city)
“[They should be] fair, don't accept backhand bribes, they [should] do the job
based on, like, objectivity.”
(Female, 25 yrs, degree level & above, student, no party affiliation,
city)
There was much discussion throughout the groups – but especially in the older age
groups - of ‘cronyism’, a term that was seen to imply the exact opposite of objective
conduct. There was believed to be a great danger of ‘cronyism’ in the appointment of
people to public office. This was seen to occur at all levels – from local councils
through to national bodies. In opposition to this, it was argued that public office
holders should be appointed only on the basis of merit, and that they should exhibit
the relevant skills, expertise and experience to carry out their role. This was a point
made most forcibly by respondents in the middle and older age groups.

National Centre for Social Research
30
“[They need to be] a professional. For example, being a barber myself, if I
wasn’t a barber and I was sitting in a barber’s chair and somebody else
would cut the hair, and made a hash of things…they’ve got to show
confidence…they’ve got to be able to let you know that they can do the job.”
(Male, 37 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, self-employed, Labour
supporter, city)
The importance of objectivity was emphasised across all group discussions, though
the term itself was rarely used in lower educational groups. Younger respondents,
particularly the more highly educated, spoke of independence or fairness in a way
that suggested that public office holders should embrace equality and give equal
treatment to all people in how they go about their job. The importance of being ‘open
minded’ or ‘broad minded’ was highlighted here. This quality was described as being
willing to entertain new or unpopular views. In this sense, objectivity or
independence carried with it a requirement to be tolerant of different types of
people, regardless of sexuality, ethnicity, religion or other attributes.
F1 They need to be open to any possibility, you know, to
broaden their horizon… not horizons but you know keep
their mind open for everything. Not be so narrow-minded.
Moderator Why is that important?
M2 In this day and age you have to be tolerant now. You can’t
go back on being a bigot and saying queers and whatever,
Pakis or something like that. You just have to be tolerant.
And like we said you have to respect everyone no matter
creed, colour, race, whatever. And that’s some of the
problems that are happening these days is no respect for
each other…
(Group: 18-30 yrs, degree level or above, rural)
Finally, as well as the other qualities outlined above, objectivity for elected politicians
was also seen to include the ‘ability to say that you don’t agree, regardless of your party’.
There was some discussion of incidents where it was felt individual politicians had
been coerced into certain views or to lend support to certain policies against their
will because of pressure from their party. Thus, an objective politician was
sometimes defined as one who could stand up to the party agenda.
3.2.4 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.
An accountable public office holder was, in the main, regarded as a ‘responsible’
public office holder. The willingness to take responsibility for actions – not to ‘shirk
responsibility’ - was considered to be a key value in this respect. As indicated in
Chapter 2, the importance of accountability was closely linked to concern about the
use of public finance and a belief that as public employees, office holders should be

National Centre for Social Research
31
answerable to the public and ‘justify their actions’. It also referred to the need for
public office holders to be ethical, just and responsible in their conduct. This
primarily involved being able to admit to wrongdoing or mistakes, as one
respondent put it ‘to know when they’ve overstepped the mark and to fall on their sword’.
In this sense, it was difficult to distinguish in respondents’ accounts the need for
accountability from the wish for transparency or openness amongst public office
holders and public institutions generally. The two were recurrently expressed
alongside each other. This is illustrated in the following extract:
Moderator Being accountable, do you want to say a bit more about
what you mean by that - ?
M2 Yeah – like they should be able to stand up to their actions,
like they should be able to – whatever they do, they should
be able to defend it’s – whether they’re right or – or anybody
should always do things that are right, or – I think they
should be able to be accountable for their actions.
M3 Put their hands up.
M7 Or justify their actions.
M2 Yeah, justify their actions.
(Group: 31-50 yrs, above GCSE below degree, city)
The fallibility of public office holders was emphasised throughout the discussions.
In this sense, public office holders were considered ‘human’, and liable to ‘get things
wrong’. However, where such wrongdoing was accompanied by transparency or
openness - ‘putting your hands up’ – then this was seen to mitigate any wrongdoing.
Such views clearly support a no-blame culture in public office and there was much
support for an environment that would encourage the disclosure of wrongdoing,
rather than one that may lead to concealment. This was clearly linked to distaste for
the conduct implied in recent news stories where it was suggested that public office
holders had been involved in concealing bad news from the public.
“There should be standards about accountability, we don’t expect them to get
everything right and we want them to admit it when they’re wrong.”
(Female, 51yrs, degree level & above, public sector employed, Liberal
Democrat supporter, city)
There appeared sometimes to be greater respect for public office holders who were
seen to be accountable for their actions, in some respects, regardless of the nature of
the wrongdoing or error. Moreover, taking responsibility for one’s actions was
associated with strength of character.
M4 It always used to be the system that was the accountability,
if something happened it was a resignation.

National Centre for Social Research
32
M3 That’s one thing in [Name of former Minister]’s favour
actually isn’t it.
M8 Yeah.
M3 The first time I think he actually – they proved him to be
not guilty but the guy resigned anyway. He said ‘look I’m
causing you an embarrassment’ and so at least he showed
some moral fibre.
(Group: 31-50 yrs, degree level & above, city)
The term accountability was not common amongst younger respondents, except
among those with the highest qualifications. Conversely, it was a term which was
recurrently used by older respondents. In addition, it was a principle that was
championed by women more than men during the discussion – regardless of age or
educational attainment.
3.2.5 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.
Openness was sometimes described as ‘laying your cards on the table’, ‘being up-front’
and amongst those in the more highly educated groups as ‘transparency’. Indeed,
although the principle was articulated almost universally, terms like openness and
transparency were more commonly used by more highly educated respondents and
less apparent amongst respondents with few or no qualifications. Here, the need for
openness was described as the need to keep the public informed about progress
(especially in relation to promises made) and not ‘to bury events when something has
gone wrong’.
Openness in public office was also construed as a need to declare any outside
influences that may have a bearing on decisions made. Here the focus was on not
having a ‘hidden agenda’, and the need to ‘be explicit’ about what may motivate policy
or spending decisions.
The desire for transparency in public office was great, and attempts to conceal
misconduct or potentially unpopular policy decisions were generally held in very
low regard. Indeed, concealment was sometimes viewed as more improper and
distasteful, and said to generate more unpopularity, than any original ‘wrongdoing’.
Accounts of such alleged behaviour were recurrent throughout the discussions. In
this sense, lack of transparency was often construed as a lack of honesty.
“I mean I don’t personally believe that there was any wrong-doing [by the
present government in relation to an issue of policy], but not actually
inviting transparency over that particular issue is at least something that
lends itself to suspicion. It comes back to talking the talk and walking the
walk, you know, practice what you preach. They were voted in because they

National Centre for Social Research
33
would be honest and transparent, and they’re not being transparent, and
possibly in a very minor way, not honest here”
(Male, 37 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, public sector employee,
Labour supporter, city)
A further aspect of the principle of openness was the desire for public office holders
to ‘not scout around issues’ but rather to ‘give a straight answer’. In some accounts, this
was limited to elected politicians who, it was alleged, rarely answered questions in a
straightforward manner, but in others it also included appointed public office
holders – particularly civil servants and special advisers. The desire for ‘straight
answers’ was primarily a wish for more openness about how policy is made and
where public money is spent. There was sometimes a view that office holders are less
than clear in responding to such enquiries and that responses to questions raised can
include jargon, or refer to procedures, that are not widely understood by the general
public. A feature of this related directly to the use of the media by public office
holders. It was felt that the media should not be used to manipulate facts and that
public office holders should not shape the facts of story, or ‘spin’ it, so that they
appear in a more favourable light.
”… the thing that annoys me is all these spin doctors, particularly the
current government sort of changing the stories, and – well, actually lying
about the stories, and I think that is wrong”
(Male, 40 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, self employed, Liberal
democrat supporter, rural)
3.2.6 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.
The need for honesty in public office was articulated as a desire that those holding
office be truthful or trustworthy, and described sometimes as the need for public
office holders to ‘keep themselves clean’. It was recurrently linked to the need for
openness in public office and the importance of having public office holders declare
interests outside of their office was also emphasised. It was generally felt that all
office holders – appointed and elected – should not conceal anything that could
compromise their decision-making. Groups were generally unequivocal in their
insistence of this.
“They do have standards in that they are supposed to declare interests, but –
you know, every so often it comes up that someone has forgotten to mention
that they happen to be – you know, chairman or on the board of some body
…. Then it’s just ‘oh dear, I’ve forgotten – never mind’, pat on the head and
we all carry on’, whereas that to me is – is really serious… it just makes a
mockery of the whole system.”
(Female, 47 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, self employed, no party
affiliation, city)

National Centre for Social Research
34
These discussions were often connected with apparent low levels of trust and
confidence in public office holders. At the root of this distrust – as discussed in
Chapter 2 – is a suspicion that public office holders frequently ‘cover things up’.
Similarly, allegations of lies and deceit in public office – of ‘embroidering what’s going
on’ - were recurrent. Therefore, calls for greater openness were often another way of
articulating a desire for honesty in public office.
“Same thing, it was the [Name of former MP] thing as well, wasn’t it?…It
was money, wasn’t it?… I mean he just lied every time it was brought up,
and eventually he went to court... It’s just the consistent lying to cover their
own backs. “
(Female, 32 yrs, degree level & above, public sector employed, Liberal
Democrat supporter, city)
Failure to deliver or follow-through on promises made by politicians during election
campaigns was a key way in which politicians were judged to be ‘dishonest’.
“Now the chances are that whatever politicians they are, unfortunately they
tend to forget what they told you in the manifesto…. They told you that to
get elected so there’s a degree of dishonesty there as well, I think, all the
time.”
(Male, 61 yrs, degree level or above, private sector employed,
Conservative supporter, city)
There were some who argued that electoral politics required politicians to lie or at
the very least to be economical with the truth. In this sense, complete honesty was
regarded as a dangerous tactic for politicians that may not be rewarded at the ballot
box. In question here was the very nature of the electoral system, which was seen to
encourage politicians to inflate the public’s expectations of future prosperity.
Though it was a rare view within the groups, it did serve a challenge to the idealism
that was sometimes evident in respondents’ accounts.
“And if they were honest, would we still vote for them? Are we ready for
their honesty? And if they all were honest, like we’d like them to be, I’m
talking before we elected them …would we?”
(Male, 44yrs, degree level or above, public sector employed, Liberal
Democrat supporter, rural)
As noted in Chapter 2, hypocrisy was a central concern for respondents in their
evaluation of the private conduct of public office holders. Similarly, the potential for
public office holders to be hypocritical or duplicitous in their public conduct was also
a source of some debate within the group discussions. This related particularly to
elected politicians who, it was argued preach “one rule for ‘us’ and another for ‘them’’’.
Such behaviour was seen to be an indication of dishonesty.

National Centre for Social Research
35
3.2.7
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership
and example.
As we saw in the previous chapter, the potential for public office holders to lead by
example was one of the key reasons why standards in public life were thought to be
important. It is unsurprising, therefore, that leadership emerged as a key principle in
respondents’ accounts. There was considerable emphasis on the need for public
office holders to behave in a way that could serve as example to others. This
principle was seen to apply exclusively to elected politicians or public office holders
who are in the public eye. The scope of other appointed office holders to provide
any kind of leadership – in the sense implied by the views recounted above - was
generally seen to be limited. Younger respondents underscored the potential for
public office holders to be a model for all citizens. However, amongst older
respondents, the emphasis was more on the ability for office holders to shape the
moral development of children and young people. The ability to provide leadership
was generally seen to rest on the extent to which a public office holder could
command respect and admiration, and could exist by an exemplary set of ethics.
Trust was also an important consideration here – without trust in the decision-
making capabilities of elected politicians, there was little conception of how they
could act as ‘leaders’.
“We tend to look for the government… as a kind of leadership, and if you
can’t rely or trust people that are leading you then you’re like a ship without
a captain.”
(Female, 50 yrs, above GCSE & below degree level, private sector
employee, Conservative supporter, rural)
An aspect of the principle of leadership that was reserved exclusively for elected
politicians was the extent to which elected politicians showed vision or foresight in
dealing with issues of policy. There was a clear expectation that elected politicians,
particularly at Parliamentary or Ministerial level, should behave as leaders of the
state. A number of qualities were seen to denote a good leader or statesperson.
There was a strong emphasis on the foresight or vision that a politician should
exhibit in the conduct of public affairs, and concomitant support for those politicians
who were ‘able to see the bigger picture’ and to act ‘for the greater good’.
M3 Being able to see the bigger picture and… using the natural
channels of power for the better good at the end.
F1 They need to be able to make other people see the bigger
picture as well. Because I know a lot I want things done
and I want them done now but that’s not necessarily the
best way to go about it… they need to be able to relate that
… and let other people see what it is they’re actually
working for.
(Group: 18-30 yrs, degree level & above, rural)

National Centre for Social Research
36
Also important was the ability of politicians to demonstrate a more rounded
viewpoint than one would expect of others in society. In doing so, it was expected
that politicians would entertain and appreciate diverse positions and arguments
without being swayed too quickly in one direction or the other. Here ‘leaders’ were
characterised by having strong personalities who also had the ability to be flexible
and open to new ideas.
There was a clear expectation that politicians – as leaders - should be astute in
deciding the priority of policy issues. For those in ministerial posts, it was suggested
that an aspect of that role should be the ability to master simultaneously local,
domestic and international concerns. Achieving the right balance in this was
considered important and those who were considered deficient in this were
generally frowned upon.
Older respondents equated being a good leader with age, and there were recurrent
views that to be a good politician one had to have ‘an understanding of life’ or a good
deal of ‘life experience’.
“That person has to be 100% experienced in certain fields but I think age is
an important factor as well. I’m not saying that the person has to be 80….
but experience certainly comes from the older you get not the younger you
are.”
(Male, 58 yrs, degree level & above, private sector employee, Labour
supporter, city)
There was some belief that public office holders – especially those in the public eye –
should convey exemplary standards of professional conduct in how they carry out
their role. One feature of this was a requirement that public office holders be ‘polite’,
‘courteous’ or ‘well-mannered’. These were seen to be important components of ‘acting
professionally’. Appearance was also deemed an important factor here. There was a
preference for public office holders who had a ‘tidy appearance’ and those who looked
‘good and smart’. Such expectations went beyond matters of outward appearance to
how public office holders are seen to deal with one another in public. Behaviour in
Parliament at Westminster was sometimes considered to lack the required element of
propriety. Personality clashes between politicians – evident in Parliament and those
communicated through the media - were cited as unprofessional and considered
obstructive for the general public. Furthermore, it was felt that important policy
issues were sidelined by the obvious difficulty that some public office holders had in
dealing with one another. This was a view recurrent amongst the middle and older
age groups. It was rare for younger respondents to place emphasis on this.
“Well it’s like a pantomime isn’t it? Seeing the Houses of Parliament on
telly. It’s just like, all they need is some custard pies and they’re well away.
Because it’s just bicker bicker bicker bicker…”
(Female, 36 yrs, GCSE or below, private sector employee, no party
affiliation, rural)

National Centre for Social Research
37
“And now it’s all got down to, they’re more interested in discrediting each
other in the media. It’s just turned into, it’s no wonder nobody knows
what’s going on because you don’t trust anybody. It’s just all lies in the
paper and it’s more about getting, um, for want of a better word, slagging
each other off all the time, it’s not got anything to do with what they’re going
to do for the public”
(Female, 37 yrs, GCSE or below, unemployed & available for work,
Liberal Democrat Supporter, city)
3.3 How public opinion compares with the Committee’s definitions of
good conduct
The public clearly place great importance on having standards of conduct for public
office holders and the discussions have generated a great deal of understanding
about the standards that respondents believe should be upheld. Table 3.1
summarises respondents’ views about what aspects of public office holders’
behaviour should be subject to standards against the types of conduct implied by the
Committee’s Seven Principles. There is considerable overlap between the two. For
certain principles – for instance Accountability –respondents’ views mirror the
Committee’s definitions of these standards almost exactly. And in the case of other
principles – Selflessness, Leadership, Honesty, Openness and Objectivity – there is
also much common ground. However, with these principles we see that the scope of
the principle is broader amongst respondents than it is in the Seven Principles. This
is particularly true of Selflessness and Leadership. The definition of Selflessness, for
example, extends beyond the one stipulated by the Committee (to act in the public
interest and not to seek financial or other benefits) to include the requirement that
public office holders be dutiful, accessible, in touch with the people and faithful
representatives of the views of the people. The definition of leadership includes,
inter alia, the need for public office holders to bring vision or foresight to their role
and to act professionally.
There are also some apparent differences between the public’s and the Committee’s
definitions of a principle. This is most clearly exhibited by respondents’ apparent
difficulty in defining integrity. True, respondents’ views about integrity could be
said to follow the mood of the Committee’s definition, in the sense that being ‘decent’
or ‘living by a set of principles’ could be construed as not placing oneself under
obligation to outside individuals or organisations. However, the types of conduct
implied by the Committee’s definition are more akin to participants’ definitions of
objectivity (such as not being open to bribery). Moreover, some aspects of conduct
appear to be implicated in the definition of several principles – the need to be
trustworthy, to be honest or truthful – are seen as important qualities of integrity,
openness, honesty and leadership. Similarly, the discussion of accountability often
coincided with a call for openness or transparency in public office. Integrity was also
a central concern in the discussion of accountability, in the sense that someone with
integrity would not shirk or avoid responsibility. Openness, as discussed above, was
closely linked with honesty, integrity and accountability.

National Centre for Social Research
38
Table 3.1 Comparison on Committee’s definition of principles with views expressed in group discussions
Committee’s Definition Respondents’ Views and Language
Selflessness
−
Act solely in terms of the public interest
−
Not act in order to gain financial or other benefits for
themselves, family or friends
−
Commitment to needs of public
−
Put the people’s needs before their own, regardless of difficulty in doing so
−
Not allow self interest, or interests of friends or colleagues, to take precedence
−
Not abusive of equipment, assets, public time, funds or privileges
−
Dutiful in and dedicated to public office
−
Accessible to the public
−
Remain in touch with the people
−
Represent the views of the people
Integrity
−
Not place themselves under any financial or other
obligation to outside individuals or organisations
−
Be decent
−
Honourable
−
Live by a set of principles
−
Honesty
−
Be trustworthy
−
Fairness
−
Be ‘whiter than white’
−
‘Stick to your word’
Objectivity
−
In carrying out public business, holders of public office
should make choices on merit
−
Independence
−
Fairness
−
Not corrupt or open to influence, ‘bribery’ or ‘backhanders’
−
Not abuse power for personal gain or interest
−
Embrace equality
−
Be open minded and tolerant
−
Not submit to pressure from one’s political party

National Centre for Social Research
39
Table 3.1 Continued
Committee’s Definition Respondents’ Views and Language
Accountability
−
Be accountable for their decisions and actions
−
Submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate
to their office
−
Not shirk responsibility
−
Admit wrongdoing and mistakes
−
Provide answers to the public (their employers)
−
Justify actions
−
Be transparent and open
−
Behave ethically and justly
Openness
−
Be as open as possible about all the decisions and
actions that they take
−
Give reasons for their decisions and restrict
information only when the wider public interest clearly
demands
−
Transparency
−
Be upfront with the public – ‘lay cards on the table’
−
Declare outside interests
−
Honesty
−
Not conceal or ‘bury’ events when something goes wrong
−
Give a clear or ‘straight answer’ at all times
−
Not manipulating of the media
−
Be clear about how public money spent and how policy made
Honesty
−
Declare any private interests relating to their public
duties
−
Take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way
that protects the public interest
−
Honesty
−
Be truthful (not ‘covering up’ or ‘embroidering the truth’)
−
Not hypocritical
−
Trustworthy
−
Declare interests outside their office that compromise decision making
Leadership
−
Promote and support these principles by leadership
and example.
−
Behave in a way that sets example for others
−
Worthy of trust and respect
−
Exhibit vision and foresight
−
Act for the public good
−
Hold a rounded viewpoint
−
Competent in deciding the priority of policy issues
−
Have an understanding of life or life experience
−
Act professionally

40
Some of this difference is a matter of language. Put simply, the public do not always
use the precise terms set down by the Committee. Indeed, the language used by
participants is on the whole richer, more florid and more colloquial. This is unlikely
to be of concern given that what is important is that the types of conduct covered by
the Seven Principles are included amongst the range of conduct that the public feels
should be subject to standards. However, it is also important to realise that certain
aspects of the conduct of public office holders that the public feel should be subject to
regulation, do not, at present, fall within the definitions of the Seven Principles. This
raises an important issue. The Committee may need to consider some aspects of its
current definitions of good conduct and evaluate whether they adequately
encompass public opinion. There may be aspects of what the public thinks should be
covered by standards that the Committee may wish to adopt. Alternatively, there
might be good reason (such as they are the proper function of the electoral process or
parliamentary scrutiny to enforce) why some of the issues raised by participants
should remain outside the remit of the Committee – or indeed be the jurisdiction of
other public bodies – and the Committee may wish to make this explicit.
3.4 The relative importance of different aspects of conduct
As well as indicating what standards appear to matter to the public, the focus group
discussions also provide some clues as to which standards matter most. One measure
of the importance placed on certain behaviours is the recurrency with which and the
range of contexts in which they are mentioned. And, as noted above, the desire for
public office holders to be honest and trustworthy, and to be open or transparent in
carrying out their role, were qualities that arose in the discussion of many principles.
Much the same was true of accountability.
The relative importance of honesty and trustworthiness is supported by the results of
the brainstorming exercise carried out in each group. Once each group had
brainstormed a list of bad conduct they had observed or heard about in recent times,
groups were asked to assign priority to the different examples given – in an attempt
to discover what was considered the most unacceptable type of conduct. Although
there was never universal agreement on the importance of any one principle or
behaviour, honesty consistently emerged as the principle that carried more import
than any other. The main explanation offered for this was that other principles of
good conduct would follow naturally from honesty. So, even though groups
generated a broad range of requirements for public office holders, it was common for
respondents to comment that ‘it all comes down to honesty’. In this sense, honesty was
seen as the core principle of good conduct and implied all of the other principles
raised during the discussion.
“We’re Joe Public, we’re just sat there wondering what the hell’s going to
happen next, you know? Who’s going to tell us what? Are we just going to
find out when it actually hits the fan? So I think, yes, the honesty is, well
it’s probably the biggest one for me really..”
(Female, 33yrs, GCSE or below, private sector employee, no party
affiliation, city)

National Centre for Social Research
41
It is also worth noting that honesty is the principle that respondents perceive as most
absent from public life at the present time, especially from elected politicians. It is
possible, therefore, that the pervasive lack of trust and confidence in public office
holders – discussed in Chapter 2 – has elevated this quality above all others.
The importance placed upon honesty as the touchstone of good conduct in public
office was particularly apparent amongst those with few or no qualifications. They
were often more reductive in their conception of bad conduct – labelling instances
which demonstrated lack of accountability or objectivity, very simply, as ‘lying’ or
‘dishonesty’.
Other principles also emerged as more significant for the public based on the
priorities voiced during the brainstorming. Openness or transparency was felt to be
crucial in the work of a public office holder. Again, this was seen to be a core value
from which other aspects of good conduct – such as not being open to influence or
declaring interests - would ensue:
“Absolute transparency should be the number one priority. It eradicates any
possible abuse of power, abuse of funds…”
(Male, 37yrs, above GCSE, below degree, Labour supporter, city)
Finally, at the end of the discussions, when respondents were asked to discuss the
key characteristics of a good office holder, honesty again featured recurrently in
views expressed. Openness and transparency were also seen as vital. Accountability
was also stressed here, particularly by older and more educated participants.
Moderator What do you think are the characteristics or the qualities of
a good public office holder?
M8 As long as he tells the truth, you know, and doesn't say one
thing and go and do another thing.
F3 Accountable for your actions, isn't it, to the people who put
you there…
M8 As long as he's honest and -
F5 Somebody that's honest and turns up at meetings when
they're asked to turn up….
M2 And stand up and - it's a very difficult question for us to
answer sitting here but I mean I'd like someone to say, oh
hell, I've dropped a clanger, lads, you know, I've lost 27
million, and you'd say, oh well, get on with it then, instead
of, you know, sitting down and saying I didn't do anything,
that sort of thing. That's the fellow you want to get up and
be fair with you.
F3 Accountable.

National Centre for Social Research
42
M2 Accountable, yes.
(Group: 51-70 yrs, GCSE or below, city)
3.5 The relevance of principles for different office holders
There was little consensus within the discussions about the applicability of principles
for elected and appointed office holders. One set of views suggested that both types
of office holders should be subject to the same principles of conduct. Others
suggested that while the principles may be the same, the standard expected should
be higher for elected public office holders, for example, that they should be more
honest or more transparent than appointed office holders. Even a brief overview of
the definition and articulation of principles above is enough to conclude that
respondents do draw distinctions in the conduct expected from elected and
appointed office holders. While many principles are considered equally important –
such as honesty, openness, accountability, objectivity and integrity - other principles,
or aspects of them, appear to have limited applicability. For instance, there are
features of the principle of leadership and selflessness that clearly apply to elected
politicians only. Equally, concern about ‘cronyism’ prompts public concern about the
status and competence of some appointed public office holders. But when explicitly
asked about whether there should be parity in the application of standards between
elected and appointed public office holders, the respondents who in earlier
conversations draw distinctions between different types of office holders are the very
respondents who then proclaim that there should be parity.
Such contradictions are but symptomatic of the struggle of getting respondents to
think clearly about the difference between elected and appointed public office
holders. It was sometimes difficult to shift the debate away from elected public
office holders – as these are the people with the greatest public profile – and used
most often in the examples of conduct discussed within the groups. This presents
two issues for the interpretation of findings. First, standards of conduct, that in
description were seen to only apply to elected politicians, could in practice also be
extended to appointed public office holders– though this was not always explicit in
respondents’ accounts. Conversely, standards of conduct applicable to elected office
holders were sometimes extended to appointed office holders without any obvious
thought about whether or not this was appropriate or practicable. Such issues are
important, not least for the development of any survey instruments.
There are some differences apparent in respondents’ views about the seniority of
office holder – either elected or appointed. Though there were some who argued for
the equal application of principles regardless of the rank of office holder, others felt
that seniority in public office should lead to greater scrutiny of conduct. Much of the
justification for this enhanced scrutiny harks back to the reasons given to justify the
existence of standards in the first place, particularly the level of power held by public
office holders and the level of salary paid. It was argued that as one progresses in
public office – both power and salary increase. Consequently, it was suggested that
so too should the level of scrutiny applied to one’s conduct. Another important
consideration here was the likely ramifications of one’s conduct. It was argued that
the more senior the public office holder, the more likely they are to make decisions

National Centre for Social Research
43
which affect a greater number of people, and so the higher the standards they should
be expected to meet.
Finally, there were some differences drawn in the degree of scrutiny expected of the
conduct of local as opposed to national office holders. Much of these correspond
with the distinctions drawn on the basis of seniority, specifically that national
politicians have greater power, greater salary and the implications of their conduct
are greater than those at local level, and therefore standards should be more strictly
enforced amongst them. However, there was some opposition to this view from
those who argued that standards should at the very least be equally applicable, if not
more strictly imposed, at local level. This was a point most forcibly made in rural
areas, where respondents spoke of the importance placed upon ‘who you know, not
what you know’ in dealings with public office holders. Thus, in these groups, there
was a greater fear of corruption at local level and, consequently, a greater emphasis
on standards. There was also a view – in both urban and rural groups – that though
decisions made locally did not necessarily affect a great number of people, they had a
great impact nonetheless and therefore should be subject to strict enforcement of
proper standards of conduct.
The next chapter continues this discussion of principles by examining more closely
the application of principles of good conduct to specific scenarios presented in the
group discussions.

44
3.6 Key conclusions of Chapter 3
1. There is, then, a broad range of conduct that the general public thinks should be
subject to standards in public life.
2. Much of this concords with the Seven Principles set out by the Committee. This
is a strong endorsement of the relevance of the principles that have been laid
down by the Committee, and by implication of its approach to the monitoring
and regulation of standards in public life since its inception.
3. Where public attitudes differ from the Committee’s view is;
-
firstly in the language used to describe principles
-
secondly the scope of the principles is sometimes broader for the general public
than in the Committee’s definition.
4. There is also some degree of overlap or misplacement in attaching the scope of
principles to the named principle itself – e.g. declaring interests that could
influence decision making was described as both honesty and transparency
within the group discussions.
5. Honesty is seen to be the core principle – from which other types of good conduct
will naturally flow. Accountability and Openness were also viewed as the more
significant principles.
6. There is not consensus on the applicability of principles for elected and
appointed office holders. Distinctions were made between elected or appointed
office holders, on the basis of seniority and between local and national office
holders.

National Centre for Social Research
45
4 THE PRINCIPLES IN ACTION
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter we turn our attention from what, in the abstract, respondents thought
should be the principles that are upheld in public life to how they thought those
principles should be applied in practice.
To gauge how the principles developed were employed in ‘real world’ situations,
group participants were presented with three scenarios, in the later part of the
discussions. These are shown in the topic guide contained in Appendix 2. In brief,
the first scenario (Scenario One) involved a council leader who tells an ex partner
about a potential vacancy in the council ahead of this being advertised. In addition,
he passes on information about the interview process and the job itself to his ex
partner, who goes for the interview and gets the job. The second (Scenario Two)
involves the chairman of an NHS trust who invites a major drug company to pay for
educational sessions on recent advances in medical treatment. Control over the
content of the sessions is left to the hospital but the drug company is permitted to
display posters and samples of its products. The third (Scenario Three) involves an
ex MP, recently bereft of her seat in the House of Commons. She takes up a job with
a company selling helicopter parts for the armed services and private industry.
Aspects of her job involve briefing civil servants and MPs about developments in this
sector. Soon after her joining, the company is awarded a major new government
contract.
Each scenario was presented in turn and, after an initial discussion about the conduct
or circumstances depicted, the group moderator introduced a variety of additional
circumstances, or changed aspects of the initial description, in order to test the
malleability of initial views. So, for example, conditions attached to the last scenario
examined whether attitudes towards the MP’s conduct would be different if she had
been a defence minister in the previous government or, alternatively, if she had been
barred from taking up such a post for a period of time after leaving office. The full
range of potential alterations to each scenario is also shown in the topic guide (in
Appendix Two).
This chapter, then, is concerned with how the principles developed by respondents
were used in practice in the consideration of the three scenarios. First, it examines
the principles that emerged in the discussion of the scenarios and how they were
applied. This is followed by a discussion of the factors underpinning their
application.
4.2 The application of principles to the scenarios
Participants made recurrent use of the principles of good conduct outlined in the
previous chapter frequently. Indeed, in some groups, especially those with
respondents of low educational attainment, the scenarios were useful in facilitating
further definition of certain principles – like accountability, leadership and

National Centre for Social Research
46
selflessness. In each group, all of the principles featured at some point in the
discussions of the scenarios. In the first scenario, the principles that were most
commonly thought to have been transgressed were honesty, integrity, objectivity,
leadership, and accountability. In Scenario Two, integrity, objectivity, honesty,
openness, selflessness and accountability were all seen as relevant. In the third
scenario, participants made use of principles such as objectivity, openness,
selflessness, honesty and integrity. In short, the principles of good conduct were seen
as relevant to the kind of practical situations depicted in the scenarios. It seems
likely that they would be thought applicable to a wide range of other circumstances
(real or fictional) that the public might encounter.
However, while the principles were widely employed in participants’ evaluations of
the scenarios, there was little agreement about how they should be applied. As a
result, there was little consensus about the acceptability of the conduct depicted
within the scenarios. A multiplicity of views was evident in every group, and
opinion about the situations portrayed ranged from total acceptance to complete
objection. In between these two extremes were those who felt that some aspects of
particular scenarios were tolerable and others not, but even here there was little
agreement within or between groups about which aspects were more or less
acceptable.
Two characteristics of the discussion illustrate this inconsistency in how the
principles were applied:
1. The same set of circumstances trigger dissimilar principles for different
participants;
2. Even when there is consensus on the relevance of a principle, the point at which
it is seen to be transgressed varies.
4.2.1 The relevance of different principles
Throughout the discussion of the three scenarios, there was significant variation in
the perceived relevance of the various principles to the behaviour depicted. It was
rare for all members of any one group to agree that the same set of principles applied
to a particular scenario. This is not to say that discussions were characterised by
complete discord. On the contrary, it was common for some members at least to
agree on the relevance of certain principles for particular scenarios. The extract
below illustrates this, where respondents agree that the behaviour of the council
leader (in Scenario One) contravenes the principle of fairness:
F2 It happens all the time.
Moderator Is it acceptable?
M3 No.
Moderator Why not?
M3 Because this guy has got an unfair advantage.

National Centre for Social Research
47
F2 Yeah.
M3 The other three people who went there thinking they were
on a level playing field then ended up obviously
disappointed.
(Group: Age 31-50, degree level & above, city)
More commonly, however, even when there was some agreement within groups
(though rarely unity) about the acceptability of a particular behaviour participants
still disagreed about which principle or principles had been transgressed. Rather,
events depicted in the scenarios typically suggested different principles to individual
participants – if indeed any of the principles were thought relevant at all. For
example, in Scenario One there was more emphasis among some respondents on the
apparent lack of honesty on the part of the council leader and his friend. For others,
the key principle at stake was leadership because the council leader was seen to set a
bad example for others in assisting his ex partner to get the council job. Other
participants placed emphasis on alternative principles – such as fairness and
openness.
The same variance was evident in the discussion of the other scenarios. In Scenario
Two, some respondents concentrated on the apparent lack of objectivity because they
assumed the chairman to have some personal interest in inviting a specific drug
company to the hospital. For others, the emphasis was more on the lack of openness
or transparency the situation suggested – that the chairman could be a shareholder
and his colleagues or the general public may not know about it. In the third scenario,
individual respondents again placed importance on some principles more than
others, or saw some as relevant – but not others.
This unequal application of the principles is most evident when one considers those
respondents who felt that one or more of the scenarios did not transgress any
principle of good conduct. These were often the same individuals who argued
vehemently for the importance of standards and contributed to the definition of
principles earlier in the discussion. The following extract illustrates how different
principles come into play for different group participants, depending on their
interpretation of the events. It relates to Scenario Two where the group has been told
that the chairman of the NHS trust is a shareholder in the drug company – for some,
his independence is clearly at issue, others seem to be relatively unconcerned by this
development:
Moderator What's your fear around him being a shareholder?
M2 He's making money.
F8 He wants that drug to be in that hospital in that particular
area.
F6 Because it's directly benefiting himself but not necessarily
the patients.

National Centre for Social Research
48
F8 There might be a better drug that's cheaper.
F7 But surely then if the sessions were still the same and the
advances are still the same, it's up to the doctors what
medicines are used surely. Although obviously certain
funds have to come from the top it's still saying that's
what's covering the sessions for the hospital is supplied so
it's still advances in medical treatment.
Moderator Do others think this is relevant or not?
M4 Yes, I guess it's alright as long as - because the hospitals
now get to decide, it's alright.
M9 I'd say as long as the doctors are aware of other drugs, it
will be OK. If they only knew that of the drug… I mean
they won't, I wouldn't have thought so anyway, only know
of the actual medical products that are advertised by the
company. Then it would be dodgy but as long as they're
aware of others and they're able to purchase these then it
will be OK
(Group: 18-30 yrs, degree level & above, city)
4.2.2 The point at which a principle is transgressed
The second aspect of the discussions that illustrates inconsistency of application is
the point at which a given set of circumstances is seen to transgress a particular
principle of good conduct. Even when there was agreement on the relevance of a
certain principle, the point at which the conduct depicted was seen to transgress that
principle was different for individual respondents. For example, in Scenario One,
even where there was some consensus on the applicability of a particular principle –
like objectivity – this was triggered by different aspects of the council leader’s
conduct for different participants. In any one group, for example, the objectivity of
the council leader was considered to be compromised for some respondents the
moment he tells his ex partner about the upcoming job in the council. For others, this
did not suggest any inequity, and fairness was only seen to be in question at the
point that the council leader put in a good word for his ex partner. In still other
cases, objectivity was only seen in question when the ex partner is offered the job in
advance of other candidates replying to the job advertisement.
Similar variation was evident in the responses to the other scenarios. As is apparent
from the extract cited earlier in this chapter, the fact that the NHS chairman is a
shareholder provoked a mixed response to the second scenario. In Scenario Three
the principle of objectivity is breached for some by having an ex-MP involved in
lobbying current office holders. For others, there has to be some evidence that the
ex-MP has exerted some influence over the current office holders in order to win the
contract – perhaps by the provision of lavish hospitality – for conduct to be
considered dishonest, unfair or selfish. There were even some who were
unperturbed by the provision of such hospitality – but would draw the line at other

National Centre for Social Research
49
forms of ‘bribery’ – for example, holidays, cars, and so forth. Finally, there was some
belief that the ex-MP should be permitted to use the full extent of her experience and
contacts in order to procure a contract for her new employer. Here the conduct seen
to be in question was that of the current office holders – the MPs and civil servants –
whose decision-making could perhaps be compromised by the receipt of hospitality.
4.3 Factors underpinning the application of principles
Thus, within each group, there was a tendency for the principles to be applied with
greater or less rigidity. To oversimplify the situation, one could argue that group
participants can, by their responses to the scenarios, be divided into those who are
true to the spirit of the principles, that is apply the same principle in the same way
across all scenarios, and those who are not. Meanwhile, those who do apply
discretion in their interpretation of the events described in the scenarios do so in
different ways.
True, not all kinds of respondents exhibited the same level of disagreement. There is
some evidence that younger people were more likely to agree on the principles at
stake in any situation. Equally, female respondents appear more rigid in how they
apply the principles - women appeared to be less likely to be swayed by particular
circumstances than men. On the other hand, those with the same party identification
or living in the same kind of geographical location showed no particular tendency to
agree with each other. However these are but hypotheses that require some
statistical investigation.
So why was there so much disagreement about whether any particular conduct was
acceptable? Much of the answer appears to lie in the fact that respondents’
interpretations of the scenarios were not simply based on a consideration of whether
or not they breached any of the principles. Rather, they often brought a number of
other considerations to bear as well. These additional considerations include:
•
Trust
•
Perceived benefit
•
Power
•
Normality
•
Reasonableness
•
Expectations of self
•
Views about the public sector and private business
•
Expertise or knowledge about the legality of conduct
What is evident from the discussions is that the perceived acceptability of conduct is
dependent upon the complex interaction of the principles and these other factors.
What appears to happen is that respondents evaluate and judge each situation in a
context specific manner, on the basis of differing combinations of principles and
other considerations (such as the perceived benefit or expectations they would have
of themselves in a similar situation). Thus, the power or influence of the principles
appears, to some extent, dependent on how salient these other factors are perceived
to be. These additional factors featured in almost all of the discussions and it was
rare for only one of them to be evident in a single respondent’s account. Rather,

National Centre for Social Research
50
many different factors and principles were often brought to bear by a single
individual in justifying their response to a scenario. This complex process differed
across individual respondents and it explains, to a large degree, the apparent
variation in when a principle of good conduct is seen to have been transgressed. The
remainder of this section explains exactly how each of these other considerations
affected individuals’ assessment of conduct.
4.3.1 Trust
Trust was an important determinant of a participant’s reaction to the scenarios. It
was clear from respondents’ accounts that their response was in some sense guided
by the esteem with which they held the principal actors. So, for those who had
professed a lack of trust or confidence in public office holders – this was evident in
how they interpreted the scenarios –the responses produced generally were
grounded in cynicism and scepticism.
Nowhere is this more evident than in responses where participants were undecided
about whether the circumstances depicted in the scenario imply any improper
conduct. In the absence of any concrete evidence of misconduct, those who
expressed a lack of trust in public office holders were more inclined to decide that
conduct was improper in some way simply because the situation involved a public
office holder – particularly where it involved an elected politician. Here, it is obvious
that respondents’ lack of trust in and suspicion of public office holders is the main
consideration by which the acceptability of conduct is judged. The following quotes
illustrate this in relation to Scenario Three:
“I was just going to say, looking at it totally afresh, you can look at it from
two levels. You can look at it and think, oh, this sounds a bit dodgy, too
many coincidences in that little piece of paper there. But that’s because we
know how much crap our politicians tell us. But if the politicians or that
particular sector were different, you could read that and think, oh well, you
know, that’s really good. But politicians, the way it is at the moment, we
don’t believe it, and [think], oh yes, she got that because she was a politician
and they felt a bit guilty because they’d just given her the elbow, so they
thought they’d compensate her”
(Female, 33 yrs, GCSE or below, private sector employee, no party
affiliation, city)
“No, it’s just that in the past I think we’ve all heard of companies who’ve
done well because of vested interests by ministers and others. My view’s
jaded by that. But she may have got it on merit, she may have been the best
qualified …”
(Male, 44, degree & above, public sector employee, Liberal Democrat
supporter, rural)
Responses to the first scenario (involving a council leader) also illustrate the effect
that low confidence in public office holders has on the interpretation of events. The
following extract is from a group where respondents are discussing whether the
situation portrayed in Scenario One would be fairer if the job advert gave a number

National Centre for Social Research
51
where everyone could find out more information about the post. It is clear that
though there is some feeling that this would make it more equitable, responses are
still guided by a lack of trust in public institutions:
M1 [giving out a phone number to everyone] Sounds fairer but
would it change the situation?
M7 No.
M1 Would the job still be there or are they just going through
the motions here?
Moderator Is that what your thoughts are?
M1 Aye.
F2 You get so used to corrupt councils you just don't believe
anything they say
(Group: 31-50 yrs, GCSE & below, town)
Distrust in politicians is for some, directly related to the level of power they are
presumed to have. So, in Scenario Three, it was argued that if the ex-MP had
belonged to the party of the incumbent government, then it was more likely that
some impropriety occurred in awarding the contract to her company. Conversely, if
she had been a member of the opposition party – or some other party – then the
decision to award the contract to her was generally viewed with less scepticism
because it was assumed that there was less scope for her to influence the current
office holders.
The role of trust is further emphasised when the response to the second scenario is
compared to respondents’ views of other scenarios. The second scenario, for some
respondents was considered perfectly acceptable because of an apparent unwavering
trust in the integrity of doctors. Thus, the capacity of doctors to choose the right
drug, and to act always with their patients’ interests at heart, was seen to mitigate
almost any circumstance or condition that could be added to the scenario – including
the chairman having financial interests in the drug company.
Moderator Other people have argued that if the drug company can
decide the content of the session that the education is
possibly biased towards that company’s drugs. Would that
worry you or not?
M1 I think you’re going to need to have faith in the doctors.
Obviously they’re very experienced people.
M3 The doctors know what’s right. They know.
M1 They’re experienced people. You don’t become a doctor in 6
months or anything. So I would reckon you would need to

National Centre for Social Research
52
have faith in the doctors. But I’ve not got a problem with
that.
(Group: 31-50 yrs, GCSE & below, town)
Where the behaviour of politicians was for some immediately suspect, an almost
blind faith meant that the motivation of doctors was, for others, always appropriate,
thus illustrating again the role of trust in the perceived relevance of principles.
4.3.2 Perceived benefit of conduct
The application of the principles was for some respondents clearly guided by a sort
of Machiavellian logic. In short, certain behaviour was not seen as inappropriate in
circumstances where the end result was considered worthwhile. Where in the
definition of principles respondents left little scope for how they should be
interpreted, in applying these principles to the scenarios these very same
respondents appeared less stringent in their judgement of conduct where they
believed that it would benefit the general public or society. For example, although it
was acknowledged that having a drug company pay for educational sessions in a
hospital could compromise the hospital’s objectivity, the potential benefit reaped by
the NHS (less expenditure on training doctors, more funds that can be directed
towards patient care) was felt to mitigate the situation.
“I think in the real world, people only invest where they have interest and
organisations benefiting from such investment [is fine]…the drug company
is funding the training session for the doctors, that’s fine – they’re going to
be displaying their posters… some of those drugs will be there … But [they
are] trying to help to fund the training”
(Male, 36 yrs, above GCSE & below degree, private sector employee,
Labour supporter, city)
4.3.3 Power
Lack of power was an apparent factor that influenced the way some groups
responded to a scenario. In this respect, although respondents may have judged
conduct to be improper for a variety of reasons, they displayed little willingness to
apply that judgement because they felt they had little scope to influence the outcome
of the situation. Rather, they accepted the conduct depicted because they felt they
had little power to challenge or change it. This type of response was most apparent
amongst younger respondents with low educational attainment – and particularly
among those young people from minority ethnic groups – but it was also voiced by
other respondents. The following extract from a group discussing Scenario One
illustrates this point further:
F7 That’s how some things are in life, you just have to take it.
Some things are like that in life, it’s who you know really, if
you know friends in the council and you want her to get
you in maybe she will get you in, you know what I mean?
It’s all about that.

National Centre for Social Research
53
F5 It’s how it goes.
Moderator Does anybody think that’s wrong?
F5 It’s wrong but it happens don’t it?
F7 It’s wrong but it’s not right –
Moderator It just happens, is that what you’re saying?
M6 What can you do?
(Group: 18-30 yrs, GCSE & below, city)
4.3.4 Normality
As is evident from the above extract, lack of power to challenge the conduct of office
holders was sometimes directly related to the perceived normality with which such
behaviour already went unchallenged. This was particularly evident in responses to
Scenario One and, to a lesser extent, to Scenario Three. Here, there was a clear
division in some groups between respondents who applied principles like
accountability or honesty to the conduct depicted and those who – while they may
have recognised the relevance of the principles – felt there was no point in
challenging such behaviour because it was so commonplace. In this sense, the
normality of the conduct was used to justify its acceptability.
M1 I’m...suspicious of vested interest. Old boys’ club.
F3 If she’s got it on merit, fine, but, you know, it’s just a little
bit …
M1 I mean she took up the job very quickly….
F2 Yes, but, I mean to say, a lot of the time, a lot of business is
conducted on who you know, not what you know, whether
it be government or not, it’s how it goes.
(Group: 31-50 yrs, GCSE or below, rural)
4.3.5 Reasonableness
The concept of ‘reasonableness’ was also an important consideration in deciding
whether conduct depicted in the scenarios contravened any of the principles of good
conduct. Here, particular aspects of conduct were considered more or less acceptable
mainly because they were seen to be more or less reasonable within the context of the
situation. It is here that flexibility in how the principles are applied is most evident.
It is also the factor that provided perhaps the most dissonance between respondents
within a group, because what is reasonable for one respondent is unacceptable for
another.

National Centre for Social Research
54
The reaction to Scenario Two provides one of the best illustrations of this. When told
that the drug company provided lunch for the doctors attending the educational
sessions, responses within groups varied considerably. It was seen by some to be
perfectly reasonable because it could be assumed that the educational session would
happen during the normal working day and the provision of lunch would be a
logical expectation. From this perspective, no principle had been transgressed.
Dinner after the event was also for some considered appropriate, because it would
facilitate discussion of the day’s event and further sharing of learning. However, for
others, dinner was unacceptable because it is not part of the working day, and could
potentially be viewed as ‘buttering up’ the doctors to favour that company’s products.
When the scale of potential hospitality was increased - to include, for example, the
use of executive boxes at football games etc. – different respondents reacted based on
whether they thought the hospitality involved was more or less reasonable.
Respondents themselves recognised the variance within the group about what was
considered reasonable. In the following extract, the provision of a promotional pen
from a drug company is considered appropriate, but a holiday in the Bahamas is less
reasonable and, therefore, seen to suggest undue influence. However, there is an
obvious difficulty in deciding where, between these two extremes, hospitality or
sponsorship can be considered reasonable.
M4 If it was…an educational period, a relaxation period, you
can see the thing as a whole. If following that the drug
company go up and try and give – as a result they get an
introduction to a doctor and then offer him or the
purchasing manager a fortnight’s holiday in Tenerife, or
whatever, then that then becomes – if he accepts it, it then
becomes corruption again.
M9 …but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere…So if a drug
company give away a pen, if it’s got their name on it – Jo
Blogg’s drugs – you could say they’re corrupting them. In
my office where I work as a procurement officer, we’re not
allowed to accept any pens or anything, nothing at all, not
even a scrap pad – nothing, not a thing.
Moderator So, where is it being nice and where is it corruption?
M9 …I mean a holiday or two weeks away is corruption but a
pen isn’t, you’ve got to put a definition
Moderator Where would other people draw that line?
F6 I think you know when it starts feeling uncomfortable
(laughter) it’s almost you know like there’s a litmus test,
you know once you dip it and the colour is changing you
yourself know.
M4 Probably the line is where the product maker is trying to
influence an individual rather than – like our friend would
get a pen and 3,000 other people would get a pen but if they

National Centre for Social Research
55
went up to him and said to him ‘Bahamas, four months,
alright?…’
(Group: 51 –70 yrs, degree level & above, city)
Another example of the concept of ‘reasonableness’ at work is evident in the varied
responses to Scenario Three. For some it was considered reasonable to expect that an
ex-MP should wait before taking up a post that could potentially draw upon
knowledge gained while in office. However, this was considered by others to be
impractical and unfair because the ex-MP needed to earn a salary somehow, and
employment with the company was a logical career direction. The following extract
again shows how these different views lead to the application of different kinds of
principles.
M2 Well [the ex-MP taking the job straight away], that’s
questionable…there should be maybe a time where the
people can’t go into the thing that they … if you were
Minister of Defence and you gave out these contracts, and
then all of a sudden you lost your seat. To be able to go in
then and work for [name of airline company] or somebody, I
think that would be totally wrong. Because you know
which way they were going.
Moderator What kind of time limit do you think is required?
M2 It would be minimum of 18 months, two years. So things
can move on properly, to give it, to make it fair.
Moderator What do other people think of that?
F4 Well yes, but how would she make a living until then?
F5 Yes, if it’s 18 months, where would she earn a living?
F3 She might be a single mother.
F4 I mean, it’s all she knows, all that industry.
(Group: 51-70yrs, above GCSE & below degree, rural)
4.3.6 Expectations of self
Variation in the way the principles are applied to the scenarios often depended on
how respondents themselves felt they would behave in the situation portrayed. So,
if respondents felt that the conduct depicted was something they would do
themselves – or expect of their family or friends - then they were generally less
inclined to judge the behaviour as unacceptable and, consequently, less inclined to
perceive any principles to be at stake. Conversely, where respondents expected from
themselves the same standards that they expected of public office holders, then there
was more consistency in how the principles were applied. This is best illustrated by
the response to Scenario One – which was viewed by many as the one that most

National Centre for Social Research
56
represented a situation in which they themselves could have been involved – either
as someone needing a job, or as someone who could potentially help a friend in need
of a job. Here, respondents who felt that they would do probably as much, if not
more, to help their friend acquire a job (whether in the council or elsewhere) were
less likely to see any transgression of principles in the council leader’s conduct. The
opposite was true of those who felt that similar principles should apply – regardless
of whether one was in public office or not. A more complicated approach was
evident among those who felt that even though they would subscribe to such
conduct themselves personally, they expected higher standards of public office
holders – and the conduct was dishonest or unfair only because it happened in the
public sector. The influence of views about the private and public sector is discussed
further in the next section.
4.3.7 Views about the public sector and private business
The application of principles to the scenarios was sometimes dependent on whether
it was felt that standards in the public sphere should be similar or greater to those in
operation in private business. There was some belief that any breach of standards in
the public sector was more serious than it was in private business. Thus, the
situation portrayed in Scenario One was for some much more serious because it
occurred in the public sector and the location of conduct necessitated the imposition
of standards. This is closely related to lack of political trust, which as outlined
earlier, sometimes led to a more stringent application of the principles. It is also
related to concern about the use of public monies, particularly, revenue from taxation
and the ability to justify that expenditure. The view here being that local councils are
funded by the general public, and therefore they should be more accountable for
how they operate to that public. This view was predominantly aligned to (although
not exclusive articulated by) older respondents who worked in the private sector and
amongst its strongest advocates were those who were or had been self-employed.
F1 Well private business would be different, it’s up to – you
know the individual person that runs their own business
it’s up to them who they employ
M9 I think if it’s private, if a man is dipping his hand into his
own pocket and he’s employing somebody then if he wants
to get anybody he likes, if he wants to get a sign writer
who’s blind he’s not going to make a lot of money so
therefore…
F1 It’s up to him isn’t it.
M9 …he’s a bit of a fool if he does it but when it comes to the
council and the council employs a blind man to be a sign
writer you know how many signs are going to be painted
and what you’re paying for is rubbish because he’s not
going to do any work because he’s not qualified…
(Group: 51-70 yrs, above GCSE below degree, city)

National Centre for Social Research
57
However, there was also a view that standards should be the same for both public
sector and private business. This affected the application of principles in two ways,
depending on whether it was felt that the conduct depicted was acceptable in the
private sphere. If it was considered acceptable, then, it was argued, it should be
equally acceptable in public office and therefore no principles were considered to be
at stake. Similarly, if the conduct portrayed was seen to contravene any principles,
then this was seen to apply equally to both public and private sectors.
4.3.8 Expertise or knowledge of the legality of conduct
A final issue that affected how principles were applied in some groups related to the
degree to which participants had expertise or knowledge about the legality of the
conduct portrayed in the scenarios. As noted earlier, the groups contained a mixture
of people in different work situations, which meant that some participants declared
prior knowledge of the sorts of situations depicted in the scenarios. So, the presence
of some public sector workers, like nurses, NHS administrators or council
employees, or those who had experience of the various private industries depicted in
the scenarios - pharmaceutical or aeronautics – set them up as ‘expert’ participants.
This ‘expert’ information clearly affected respondents’ perception of the current legal
and regulatory position. Thus, in one group an ‘expert’ decided that to have given
the job away before it was advertised (Scenario One - the council leader) was ‘illegal
under employment law’ and this new information also impacted on other respondents’
decision making. Similarly, in another group, an ‘expert’ explained that it was
‘against current regulations’ for a profit making company to fund an educational event
within the NHS, and knowledge of this had an influence on people’s judgement of
the conduct depicted.

National Centre for Social Research
58
4.4 Key conclusions of Chapter 4
1. All of the principles were seen as relevant to the discussion of the events
depicted in the scenarios, and in some groups, the scenarios aided further
definition of these principles.
2. Though the principles were thought relevant, there was considerable variance
in how they were applied. Two aspects of the discussion illustrate this. First,
the same set of circumstances triggered dissimilar principles for individual
participants. Second, even when there was consensus on the relevance of a
principle, the point at which it was seen to be transgressed was different for
individual participants.
3. Differences in the application of principles arose because the acceptability of a
particular behaviour was not only judged with reference to the principles but
also with respect to a range of other additional factors including:
•
how much prior trust participants had in the main protagonists;
•
the perceived benefit or value of the conduct portrayed;
•
how empowered respondents felt to challenge or change conduct;
•
how common the situation was perceived to be;
•
whether certain aspects of the conduct were considered reasonable,
and to what extent;
•
the expectations that respondents would have of themselves in the
scenarios depicted;
•
the views held about the public sector and private business;
•
prior expertise or knowledge of the legality of conduct.

National Centre for Social Research
59
5 REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This research study constitutes the first step in the Committee’s quest to understand
more about public attitudes towards standards of conduct for public office holders.
The study had two central aims. The first was to discover what standards the public
thinks public office holders should uphold. The second was to identify what types of
conduct were and were not considered unacceptable in the light of those standards.
By using qualitative methods this study has been able to explore the full range of
standards that matter to the public and the language in which those standards are
expressed. At the same time it has been able to investigate in some depth what
behaviours are considered unacceptable and why. This chapter reflects on the main
findings that this approach has enabled us to identify and considers how they
advance our understanding.
5.1 The importance of standards
The evidence presented in this report suggests that the public does believe that
standards should be upheld in British public life. Our participants were almost
unanimous in their support for this proposition. There are a number of reasons why
standards are thought to matter. Standards were felt to be important because of the
capacity of public office holders to provide leadership and guidance to society at
large or because of their involvement in setting standards or passing legislation – a
position seen to carry great power and authority. The fact that those occupying
public office were potentially receiving payment from the public purse, or were
involved in the allocation or spending of public monies was also used to justify the
need for standards. A lack of trust in public office holders – elected and appointed –
only reinforced the perceived need for standards.
While apparently nearly everyone believes that standards matter, there is
disagreement about their scope. Some people believe that the private life of a public
office holder should always be subject to public scrutiny, while others feel that
private is private. The most common view however was that it all depends on
whether private behaviour is legal, discreet, immaterial to the performance of a
person’s public role and not at variance with publicly stated views. It appears that
private life is a grey area rather than a matter of black and white.
It is unclear whether the public believe the same standards should be upheld to the
same degree by all public office holders. In the abstract there was general support in
our focus groups for the view that the same standards should be applied to all those
holding public office. However, when faced with specific circumstances, some
participants suggested that certain issues were of less concern, for certain types of
office holder. In particular, there was some feeling that more senior office holders, or
those who hold national or more ‘high profile’ positions should be subject to greater
scrutiny. However, there was far from universal support for this distinction.
Our study suggests then that there is widespread belief in the need for the
maintenance of standards in public life. There is however more ambiguity and

National Centre for Social Research
60
disagreement about whether this should extend to a public office holder’s private life
and about whether it should be applied equally to all those in public office.
5.1.1 What standards matter and why
But what standards do the public want to see upheld? This research suggests that the
Seven Principles of Public Life do encompass many of the standards that the public
believes should be upheld. This finding is a strong endorsement of the relevance of
the principles that have been laid down by the Committee, and by implication of its
approach to the monitoring and regulation of standards of public life since its
inception.
There are, however, also three important differences between the Seven Principles
and the public’s view of the standards that they would like to see upheld. First, the
language used to describe conduct or to express principles of good conduct does not
always concord with that used in the Committee’s definitions. Abstract terms such as
integrity or selflessness do not appear to be widely understood, particularly by those
who are younger or of lower educational attainment. Second, when people are asked
to identify good and bad conduct, it is rare for some of the principles at least to be
mentioned in isolation. Apparently some of the principles, such as and especially
openness and accountability, are sufficiently similar in their meaning in the public’s
mind that it is rare for people to talk about one without soon mentioning the other.
Finally, the public’s definition of some the principles appears to be wider than that of
the Committee. This is particularly the case for leadership and selflessness, and is
also true to a lesser extent of honesty, openness and objectivity. In short, while the
public’s concerns encompass all of the Seven Principles, the Seven Principles do not
cover all of the public’s concerns. Whether all of the public’s concerns can be
recognised by a process of regulation is however far from clear as some, such as the
willingness of politicians to keep their election promises, may well be thought more
suitable for the judgement of the ballot box than enforcement through a regulatory
framework.
The group discussions also suggested that the public attach more importance to
certain principles of good conduct than others. Honesty clearly emerged as the most
important. In many ways this was seen to be a core principle from which others
naturally follow. Thereafter, trustworthiness, transparency and accountability (a
principle particularly emphasised by women in group discussions) seem to be the
next most important qualities.
While there was considerable agreement amongst our respondents about what
standards should be upheld, there was not unanimity. In particular, older and better
educated respondents often proffered richer definitions of each principle than did
younger and less well educated participants. They were also more likely to use the
language of the Seven Principles. However how far this reflects differences of
attitude rather than differences of expression is difficult to determine and will
require appropriate quantitative research to unravel. Meanwhile, there was no
consistent suggestion that party identification, type of employment, ethnicity or
gender made any difference to people’s views.

National Centre for Social Research
61
5.1.2
Applying standards
While our research suggests there is considerable consensus amongst the public
about what standards matter, there appears to be far less agreement about how they
should be applied. The same set of circumstances raises questions about different
principles for different participants; while for one participant a particular scenario
might suggest that the principle of accountability has been breached, for another it
will raise doubts about leadership. And, even when the same principle is thought to
be relevant, the point at which it is seen to be transgressed often varies.
But this is not all. Our research also suggests that when it comes to judging the
appropriateness of a public office holder’s conduct, the public does not simply judge
behaviour against the principles that they think matter. Rather they bring to bear a
range of other additional considerations. These include the level of trust they have in
those depicted in the scenario, how commonplace the situation was thought to be,
and how reasonable the behaviour appeared to be in the circumstances. In addition,
as well as their understanding of the legal position, people also seem to take into
account how they think they would behave in that situation, whether they feel they
have the power to change the situation, and whether or not what might be
considered acceptable in the private sector should automatically also be considered
acceptable in the public sector.
These additional factors do not replace the principles as the main determinants of
acceptable conduct. Rather, individuals use them to a greater or lesser extent, in
differing combinations, in conjunction with the principles, to assess the
appropriateness of conduct, and it is this that accounts for the apparent variance in
when a principle of good conduct is perceived to have been transgressed. These
additional factors seem to be particularly important in the judgements made by men.
5.2 How does this research increase our understanding of public
attitudes?
Relatively little research has been undertaken hitherto on public perceptions of the
behaviour of public office holders. As Pharr (2000) writes, ‘Although studies of
individual corruption and ethics cases go forward, and corruption itself, its causes
and cures, attracts research, the deeper significance of conduct-in-office issues for
relations between mass publics and leaders in democracies goes largely unexplored.’
Moreover, such research as has been undertaken in this area has focused, as
illustrated in Section 2.2.2 above, on the implications of reports of political scandals
on people’s trust and confidence in their system of government rather than on what
kinds of behaviour might give rise to a perception that a scandal has actually
occurred. Our evidence in Section 2.2.1, of course, provided further evidence that
perceived wrong doing can undermine political trust while in Section 4.3.1 we also
affirmed the suggestion that low levels of trust and confidence in public office
holders may make it more likely that a misdemeanour is perceived to have occurred
(Mortimore, 1995).
However, a few clues on what the British public do and do not consider to be
acceptable behaviour for public office holders were obtained by some of the opinion

National Centre for Social Research
62
poll research that took place when the allegations of sleaze that surrounded the last
Conservative government were at their height in the mid-1990s (Mortimore, 1995).
Meanwhile a few of the issues have been revisited more recently by the 2000 State of
the Nation survey (Dunleavy et al, 2001).
Our respondents’ feeling that standards matter and should be enforced through a
system of independent regulation is well in line with this previous research. Thus
according to the 2000 State of the Nation survey, 42% agree that, in the event of an
allegation of serious professional misconduct by a government minister, an
investigation should be conducted by an independent commission, while another
28% would put matters in the hands of the police. Just 16% would leave the House of
Commons to investigate and decide whether the minister should resign, and only
17% believe that the Prime Minister should be the competent authority.
Meanwhile, evidence from mid-1990s polls suggests that the public certainly have
high standards when it comes to what would be defined by the Seven Principles as
integrity. Thus no less than 89% told Gallup in October 1994 that MPs should not
accept money or gifts in connection with their parliamentary duties, while majorities
not only believed that MPs should not accept a free holiday or a free weekend with
the wife at the Ritz, but even had doubts about whether they should accept free
tickets to sporting events, a free lunch, or a free bottle of wine at Christmas. Opinion
poll evidence from the same period also suggests that a majority of the public believe
that MPs at least can be expected to uphold a higher standard than does the rest of
the population. Thus, no less than 70% told MORI in January 1994 that, ’we the
public are right to expect MPs to behave according to a higher standard of moral
behaviour and financial honesty than ordinary people’.
Equally, the ambivalence and disagreement amongst our respondents about whether
the private lives of public office holders should be subject to public scrutiny, concurs
with previous survey evidence. Thus while in the same MORI January 1994 survey
41% agreed that, ‘if it is discovered a minister has committed a serious moral and or
financial indiscretion they should resign’, no less than 53% said that, ‘if those matters
are literally private and not illegal, then as long as they perform their job well as
minister, they should not be required to resign’. At the same time, however, in
accordance with our finding that private life is more likely be considered a public
matter when it suggests hypocrisy, 75% agreed that the press is right ‘to expose
ministers or MPs who say one thing in public, but behave differently in their private
lives’.
Our respondents not only told us what standards mattered and why; they also
expressed doubts about whether those standards are currently being upheld. This is
also reflected in the 2000 State of the Nation survey. As many as two-thirds say that
‘government ministers not being truthful’ is a ‘major problem’. Meanwhile a majority
says the same about four possible indicators of objectivity, ‘government ministers
favouring major private interests before the interests of ordinary people’, ‘ministers
appointing to government committees and task forces people who have made large
donations to their party’, ‘the granting of peerages and honours to people who have
made large financial donations to political parties’, and ‘ministers appointing friends
to important public posts’.

National Centre for Social Research
63
That a number of our findings echo such previous evidence as does exist about the
public’s perceptions of standards in public life gives confidence in the validity of our
findings. But that previous evidence is only fragmentary. This is the first study to
have attempted to identify systematically the full range of standards that the public
think should be upheld by public office holders, to explore which standards are
thought to be most important, and how far the Seven Principles of Public Life reflect
the public’s views. As a result we would identify four of our findings as both new
and important:-
1. All of the Seven Principles of Public Life feature in the public’s view of what
standards matter in public life.
2. The public’s definition of what the Seven Principles mean is sometimes rather
wider than the definition adopted by the Committee. This is especially true of
leadership and selflessness. But at the same time the public does not always
draw a sharp distinction between the meaning of some of the principles.
3. The most important standard for the public is honesty. It is widely believed
other types of good conduct will naturally flow if honesty is upheld.
4. Although there appears to be considerable agreement about what standards
should be upheld in public life, there appears to be widespread disagreement
about whether any particular behaviour engaged in by a public office holder
is or is not acceptable. This is because people do not simply judge any
particular behaviour against the standards they believe should be upheld, but
rather also take into account a range of other considerations.
This initial phase of qualitative research has provided a valuable new insight into
how the general public thinks about the standards of conduct in public life,
particularly given the dearth of previous research on this topic in Britain. The
challenge now for the Committee is to determine the prevalence of these views
amongst the British public.

67
References
Bromley C and Curtice J (1999), 'Is there a Third Way?', in R Jowell, J Curtice, A Park
And K Thomson British Social Attitudes, the 16
th
Report. Who Shares New Labour Values
(Aldershot: Ashgate)
Bromley, C., Curtice, J. and Seyd, B. (2001), ‘Still sceptical? Trust in government and
constitutional reform’ in A. Park, J. Curtice, K. Thomson, L. Jarvis and C. Bromley
(eds.), British Social Attitudes: the 18
th
report (Sage)
della Porta, D. (2000), 'Social Capital, Beliefs in Government, and Political
Corruption' in Pharr, S. and Putnam, R., eds., Disaffected Democracies: What's
Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Smith, T. and Weir, S. (2001), 'Constitutional Reform,
New Labour in Power and Public Trust in Government', Parliamentary Affairs, 54,
405-24.
Heath A, Jowell R, Curtice J, Evans G, Field J and Witherspoon S (1991),
Understanding Political Change. Oxford: Pergamon
Marsh, A.(1977), Protest and Political Conciousness, Beverley Hills: Sage
Mortimore, R. (1995), 'Public Perceptions of Sleaze in Britain', Parliamentary Affairs,
48, 579-90.
Park, A. (2000), 'The generation game', in Jowell, R. et al (eds.),
British Social Attitudes: the 17th report, London: Sage
Pharr, S. (2000), 'Officials' Misconduct and Public Distrust: Japan and the Trilateral
Democracies', in Pharr, S. and Putnam, R, eds., Disaffected Democracies: What's
Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Putnam, R., Pharr, S., and Dalton, R. (2000), 'Introduction: What's Troubling the
Trilateral Democracies', in Pharr, S. and Putnam, R, eds., Disaffected Democracies:
What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Ritchie, J & Spencer, L (1994) ‘Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research’.
In A. Bryman & R.G. Burgess Analyzing Qualitative Data, London: Routledge.
Ritchie, J, Spencer, L, & O’Connor, W. (forthcoming) ‘ Carrying Out Qualitative
Analysis’. In Qualitative Research Practice, J. Ritchie and J. Lewis (eds.), London: Sage
Schuman, H, and Presser, S. (1981), Questions and Attitudes in Attitude Surveys:
Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context, New York: Academic Press

0
APPENDIX 1 – SAMPLE PROFILE
Age
18-30 yrs 38
31-50 yrs 49
51-70 yrs 35
Educational level
GCSE & below 42
Above GCSE & below degree 42
Degree & above 38
Party identification
None 52
Labour 37
Conservative 10
Liberal Democrat 13
Plaid Cymru 4
SNP 5
Other 1
Gender
Male 64
Female 58
Ethnicity
White 106
Black –Caribbean 8
Black – African 6
Indian 0
Pakistani 0
Bangladeshi 0
Other 2
Main Activity
Private sector employees 42
Public sector employees 22
Self employed 7
Student (F/T) 17
Unemployed & actively seeking 13
Unemployed & inactive 9
Retired 8
Other 4
Total of participants in study 122

National Centre for Social Research
APPENDIX 2 – TOPIC GUIDE
Attitudes to standards of conduct in public life
Topic Guide –February/March 2002
Aim:
•
To explore the standards that public office holders (eg members of
parliament, civil servants, local councillors, appointed office holders etc..
should uphold)
Specific areas for exploration:
•
General views about conduct of POH
•
What standards of conduct are thought to be relevant
•
Factors which underpin people’s selection of different types of conduct
•
How views about conduct differ by type of office holder
•
Priority shown to different types of conduct & factors influencing
1. Introduction
•
About Natcen
•
Summarise aims of study
•
Being carried out with general population in England, Scotland & Wales
•
Study funded by the Committee on Standards in Public Life
•
Explain that will produce a written report – published by the Committee
•
Results will be used by Committee and others to understand more about
how the general public feel about these issues
•
Introduce tape recorder/ reassure them about confidentiality
•
Outline ground rules (no right or wrong answers/ don’t talk at once/ not
seeking consensus)
•
Reassure about the validity of not having an opinion/ not caring and
explain the value of stating this lack of concern/ disinterest
•
Remind them about length of discussion
2. Background
•
Name
•
Age
•
Household composition
•
Nature of main current activity (Employment/Education/etc)

National Centre for Social Research
3. General issues relating to the conduct of office holders
The aim of this section is to explore general views about standards of conduct
in public life
•
Explain again interested in what public views about behaviour of public
office holders
•
Elaborate on the many different types of POH – and underline that
interested in views on both elected and appointed office holders
•
Invite general views on the conduct of public office holders
•
Explore current feelings of trust or confidence in POH
o probe whether different for different POH
•
Examine whether feel it important to have standards/ethics in public life
o to what types of behaviour should they apply
o to whom should they be applicable (office holders they see as
more/less relevant)
o probe whether indifference/apathy to standards of conduct
expressed
•
Whether reasonable for general public to have expectations of POH
conduct
•
How much should the general public know about POH and details of
conduct – what should/ should not be made public knowledge.
4. Detailed exploration of relevant standards of conduct
The aim of this section is to explore in detail views about what conduct is
expected of public office holders
•
Invite participants to describe (briefly) recent examples of what they see as
‘good’/‘bad’ or ‘acceptable’/‘unacceptable’ conduct
o determine details of the case
o explore what makes it an example of good or bad conduct (and
record on flipchart)
o any behaviour to which some group members are indifferent

National Centre for Social Research
•
when exhausted spontaneous suggestions, if necessary, probe on any
remaining from the following list:
o taking a second job
o accepting free tickets for a football match from an oil company
o giving a friend a government job
o taking money for speaking up for a company in parliament
o securing planning permission for a friend or family member
o accepting an offer of lunch from a lobbyist
•
Using the full list developed, explore with group in relation to each un-
acceptable or bad conduct:
o what makes the behaviour or conduct wrong
o what would make it more or less acceptable
o the relative seriousness/ importance of each type of conduct
o whether views differ according to the type of POH (e.g. an NHS
director, compared to a Minister or a local councillor)
o whether expectations of POH are different from what they expect of
themselves/family/peers/ private business
•
Ensure that any difference in views amongst the group are fully examined
•
Explore whether feel any key principles of good conduct that a POH
should uphold
(note: the seven principles are - selflessness, integrity, objectivity
accountability, openness, honesty and leadership)
5. Scenario 1
•
Explain purpose of scenario
•
Distribute scenario 1, allow time to read
A local council leader tells his/her ex-business partner and friend about a job
vacancy in the council that is about to be advertised.
The ex-partner’s qualifications and experience are ideal for the job.
The council leader finds out a little more about the job and the sorts of things
that an applicant might be asked about in an interview. S/He passes this on to
her/his ex-partner.
The ex-partner goes for an interview and gets the job ahead of three other
people.

National Centre for Social Research
Explore the following:
•
General reactions to the scenario
•
Acceptability of behaviour
•
Personal standards in this situation. The rights of the ex-partner to expect
help from the councillor
Explore the impact of the following variations:
•
If the advert gave people a number they could phone, so that anyone
could find out more about what the job involved
•
If the council leader put in a good word for her/his friend before the
interview
•
Whether the ex-partner should be able to apply for a job at all at the
council
•
If the ex-partner was given the job before other people had replied to the
advert
•
If the council leader briefed his friend before the interview about recent
developments on the council
•
If this had been a private business, not the local council
6. Scenario 2
•
Distribute scenario 2, allow time to read
The Chairman of an NHS trust that runs a big hospital invites a major drug
company to pay for educational sessions for doctors about recent advances in
medical treatment. The Chairman of the NHS Trust has no financial interests
in the drug company.
Decisions about what to cover in the sessions are left to the hospital to
decide, but the company is allowed to display posters and samples of its
medical products.
Explore general reactions to the scenario
Explore the impact of the following:
•
Drug companies paying for sessions

National Centre for Social Research
•
Drug company funding being the only way sessions can happen
•
The NHS Chairman is a shareholder in the drug company
•
The company’s products were the latest anti-cancer drugs
•
The company could influence/decide the content of sessions
•
The education sessions were followed by a dinner provided by the
company
•
Doctors invited to use company suite at a major sporting event
•
The drug company approached the hospital rather than vice versa
•
If it was common practice, and endorsed by the governments, for drug
companies to sponsor NHS hospitals, what would opinions be?
7. Scenario 3
•
Distribute scenario 3, allow time to read
An MP loses an election and therefore his seat in the House of Commons.
Straightaway he takes up a job he is offered with a company that makes
helicopter parts for the armed forces and the private sector.
His new job involves inviting MPs and civil servants to lunch-time briefings
about developments in other countries’ armed forces and flight industries.
Six months after the MP starts his new job, the company is awarded a major
new government contract, beating off competition from two other competitors.
•
General reactions to the scenario
Explore the impact of the following:
•
An MP taking this job straight away/ after 3 month break – explore the
impact of waiting.
•
Impact if new job did not involve contact with MPs & civil servants.
•
Impact if company did not usually bid for government contracts
•
Whether MP’s should be allowed/ encouraged to go to such briefings
•
Impact of hospitality being provided at briefings

National Centre for Social Research
•
If the MP had been a Defence Minister until a year ago
•
Impact of ex-MP working for company – how that reflects on fairness of
decision to award contract
•
Companies bidding for contracts being allowed to give MPs briefings.
•
Impact of product – e.g. if company made tanks rather than helicopter
parts
8. Characteristics of a Good POH
•
Explore what characteristics make a good public office holder
•
Ascertain whether desired characteristics vary by type of office holder
•
Highlight any contradictions with earlier views and examine reasons for
change
9. Conclusion
•
Explain again the objectives of the research and ask for any further
contributions from the group
Thank respondents and reassure about confidentiality – make sure everyone
has received incentive money