Sir John Major’s Speech at the Institute for Government Conference – 19 June 2025
The speech made by Sir John Major at the Institute for Government Conference on 19 June 2025.
THE NOLAN PRINCIPLES AT 30: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE?
I’m grateful to the Institute for Government for inviting me to address this Conference.
For many decades, Britain enjoyed a global reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice. That is less true today. It is in our national interest to regain that reputation.
It is now 30 years since I set up the Nolan Committee to make recommendations on Standards in Public Life.
Nolan set out the seven principles of: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership – and they remain as relevant now as then.
The vast majority of elected or career public servants obey them. But a minority does not and, when that happens, there must be consequences. Too often, there are none.
It is an immense privilege to serve in public life, but it carries obligations.
Everyone – especially if elected – should be held to the highest standards of probity. Too often, they are not.
The misconduct of a small minority has left trust in public life at too low a level: scandals in political funding; in the award of honours; in lobbying; in unsavoury behaviour; in bullying; in the saga of “Partygate” – all tell us that a re-set is essential.
In recent years – in addition to individual lapses – we have seen governments break or bend the Law; ignore the conventions of good conduct; and shield their own colleagues from justified censure.
Two very senior and distinguished Advisers to one former Prime Minister resigned due to their recommendations being ignored. Such episodes lead to a collapse in respect for politics and government.
The point is simple: if public life deceives, or misbehaves – or is even thought in any way to be corrupt – this may be shrugged off.
But, by tolerating bad behaviour, we invite its repetition: this demeans public life, betrays trust, and increases public cynicism.
It has been our past practice to offer guidance on good conduct – and trust it will be delivered. That was the Nolan approach.
But experience has taught us that no rules can deal with individuals prepared to ignore them and – sometimes – sanctions are required.
The problem is that to rely on “convention” leaves loopholes for those with lax scruples. That being so, it is time to strengthen the safeguards around propriety, to ensure our public life is as free from fault as we wish it to be.
It is a healthy British instinct to be sceptical of authority.
But, today, scepticism does not fairly describe the public mood: a more accurate description would be a mixture of cynicism and disillusion that stretches across most of our public institutions ‒ The Church, Parliament, Police, Public Service and Press among them. That is not healthy.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported that social and political trends have coarsened standards. That is true, but put too gently.
Standards have been undermined by being ignored, by being broken, by public figures who put personal or political interest before public virtue.
This Committee specialises in evidence-based “enquiries” and “reviews” across all of public life. Over 30 years, its reputation has grown, but its reports ‒ like all the bodies that regulate the Executive ‒ have remained advisory.
I have re-read those reports over a long period, and am full of admiration for the Committee’s work.
Three thoughts occur: as an advisory body, without casework, it need not be statutory – although that status would strengthen its authority and be a safeguard against any temptation to abolish the Committee.
Also, its modest budget is inadequate for its role.
Most strikingly, I am baffled that more of its recommendations have not been implemented.
One welcome change would add to the Committee’s authority: the Government should respond publicly and fully to Reports within a reasonable time: too often, it does not.
The Ministerial Code is the Prime Minister’s document and, as matters once stood, he was the prosecuting Counsel, jury and sentencing judge of the standards expected of a Minister.
That has now changed. The Prime Minister has an Independent Adviser who can initiate, investigate and report on questionable behaviour including, if necessary, even that of the Prime Minister.
The Adviser can recommend sanctions on those who break the rules and if the Prime Minister demurs – either over culpability or sanctions ‒ the Adviser can ask for the Report to be published in full.
This is a good discipline to ensure recommendations are taken seriously, and not brushed aside.
I am conflicted on whether the “Independent Adviser” role should be statutory. On balance I think not ‒ even though two Prime Ministers have flirted with abolishing the role, or leaving it unfilled.
However, I think their successors are likely to understand that an Adviser with powers can spare stress to Prime Ministers.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards oversees the Code of Conduct for MPs, and the Register of their financial interests.
He has a high operational independence to investigate complaints about Members of Parliament and, where necessary, refers cases to an Independent Expert Panel to determine sanctions – or to the Parliamentary Select Committee. These options should preclude the need for a statutory basis.
In stark contrast, I hope ACOBA – the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments – can be put on a statutory basis, and given deterrent powers.
ACOBA advises upon the propriety of former Ministers and senior civil servants taking jobs within two years of retirement, or leaving the Commons. The purpose is to avoid even the suspicion of mis-use of privileged information. But, as of now, ACOBA has no power of enforcement.
High profile figures have ignored its advice. Lord Pickles, a former Chairman, has said: “There can be no credibility in a system that continues to have no demonstrable or tangible deterrent for non-compliance”.
Lord Pickles is right: he named no names, but he could have implicated very senior figures who broke the rules without consequence.
There is a secondary issue concerning middle-ranking civil servants who are below ACOBA’s normal eyeline. A steady stream are leaving public service for the private sector with little or no oversight.
This may not yet present a serious problem, but does merit scrutiny of officials who may have been privy to sensitive policy.
The Public Appointments Commission monitors appointments to large and small public bodies, to ensure they are made on merit alone and not by political bias.
The Commissioner sets up independent assessment panels to vet potential candidates and – from time to time – they have stood their ground in rejecting high-profile candidates, even when favoured by senior politicians.
But their role is not as straightforward as it may seem.
The Commissioner can face excessive lobbying by Ministers and Special Advisers to add or remove names from the list of potential appointees.
Typically, such representations are more about political preference than ability. This undervalues merit. Ultimately, Ministers make the final decision.
It would be far better if lobbying from within Government were restricted to Ministers alone who, in case of controversy, could be called to defend their role publicly. Special Advisers are there to advise not enforce, although – from what I have seen and heard – some have little understanding of that distinction.
I would also note that fewer Special Advisers – with more experience of their subject and less political ambition – might serve the nation better.
I believe the remit of HOLAC – the House of Lords Advisory Committee – needs an upgrade. There is no way, in recent years, that the appointment of Peers passes any form of democratic “smell test”. Amidst worthy appointments, others seem eye-wateringly inappropriate.
It would be reassuring if all candidates proposed by Party Leaders were privately referred to HOLAC to be investigated for suitability and ‒ crucially ‒ for a commitment to undertake the work of the Upper House. Their nomination should only proceed once HOLAC approval has been obtained.
The present vetting system is haphazard. HOLAC examines the propriety and suitability of Cross Bench Peers, but examines only the propriety of Political Peers nominated by Party Leaders. This makes no sense at all.
Suitability is important: the Lords is a working House and has an important role in our Constitution. I see no purpose in appointing Peers unsuitable for the work, or unwilling to do it. The tradition of doing so is longstanding, but it is time it stopped.
Governments of both main Parties have resisted HOLAC’s remit to vet the suitability of political Peers – for fear it would limit the Prime Minister’s role in recommending them.
Frankly, if candidates can’t or won’t do the job, they should not be given a seat in the Lords.
There are also unscrutinised nominees to the Lords – regarded as the Prime Minister’s exceptions: they are senior civil servants.
I welcome top civil servants going to the Lords, since they are likely to be valuable in revising legislation. I would, however, wish to be sure that HOLAC also scrutinises their suitability and commitment.
There should be no free pass to becoming a legislator.
The quality of public life has been examined, not only by the Committee on Standards, but by other interested bodies over recent years. More often than not, I find myself in broad agreement with their recommendations.
I do note, however, that Governments do not. When they respond to Reports – often late – they do so with a gift for obfuscation. Recommendations are treated with the utmost respect, short of acceptance.
Far too often – and with words of which any Circumlocution Department would be proud – recommendations are rejected, or watered down, or kicked into the future, or replaced by some muddy alternative.
I hope the Prime Minister will accept that upgrading our armoury against abuse will safeguard propriety in public life. To do so will reflect credit on the Government, and be a boon to our international reputation.
I would like to touch ‒ briefly ‒ on three other concerns.
The Electoral Commission ought to be a wholly independent body.
Our previous Government took legislative power to offer them so-called “guidance”. Yet “independent body” and “Government guidance” cannot co-exist.
As yet, I can’t see that this has caused any great difficulty …. BUT …. one day it will.
The present Government may wish to repeal that power in its forthcoming Election Bill. It would be reassuring if it did.
A more serious issue is the funding of politics. This is always problematic ‒ and doubly so when politics is out of favour with the public.
The first issue is foreign money. A few weeks ago it was widely reported that an American multi-billionaire was about to fund a British political party. It didn’t happen ‒ nor should it: the Party concerned would have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of foreign money.
We need to refresh protections, and close off this pipeline before it becomes a problem.
Domestic funding is an issue, too. The political Parties are only partly funded by their memberships. Apart from public funding, support comes from the Trades Unions; corporate or private donors; and, today, increasingly, by a very small number of very rich individuals.
No-one who cares about democratic freedom can be comfortable about this development – however innocent the intent of some donors may be.
This is not a new issue, but its salience is growing. Cicero warned of it 2000 years ago ‒ and the Trump Presidency with its billionaire chorus, reminds us that excessive influence of the mega-rich is incompatible with democratic politics.
This is not easy to deal with. In principle, everyone should be free to dispose of their money as they wish. On the other hand, we must ensure that policy is not for sale to the highest bidder – nor a swift route to any sort of public preferment.
No-one wishes to see a further increase in the public funding of politics, and so – in the absence of wider sources of income – a limit to individual donations per Parliament looms on the horizon.
“One Man, One Vote” is an established principle: it must not be supplanted by “One Man and his Money”.
I wish to see respect return to Parliament. It does not help when – time and again – policy statements are leaked in detail, or announced to the media, before a Statement is made in the Commons or Lords.
Such disrespect to Parliament must stop.
One final thought. With a few tweaks, the Nolan system can become an even more formidable protection against bad behaviour. I know our present Government promised a new Ethics Commission but, so far, this seems to be stuck in the long grass.
Concerns about propriety are well made, but I see no need to reinvent the wheel.
My very friendly advice to the Prime Minister would be to stiffen up Nolan, and leave the Ethics proposal where it is!
* * * * *
Earlier, I referred to our widely-envied reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice.
I regret the slow erosion of that reputation – which we would once have thought indestructible.
It is time for us to reverse this trend before the damage becomes beyond salvage.
Let me finish where I started: we need to demonstrate to the people of our own country – and far beyond – that the Nolan principles of selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership in Public Life are effective and – where not – put measures in place to enforce them.
Once we do that, we begin to restore trust and – with it – faith in politics.