THE list runs: “Accountability, Honesty, Integrity, Objectivity, Selflessness, Openness, and Leadership.” After the PM goes to the country, MPs go to school. Readers may well recognise these items on the curriculum of MPs’ induction days as Lord Nolan’s Seven Principles of Public Life, enunciated in 1995 in the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Doug Chalmers, who chairs the committee now, is urging MPs to hold these principles close: “Most MPs undoubtedly want to do the right thing, but negative stories about a minority have done immeasurable damage to the perception of Parliament and government over the years. This perception can be changed.” At the time of writing, a new Ministerial Code is awaited. Moreover, the new Prime Minister intends that his Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests should be empowered to initiate his own investigations, as Sir Philip Mawer, when he held that position, was unable to do. Change is in hand.

Nolan, who had to hand a submission from the Board for Social Responsibility, was responding to a bout of exposed “sleaze”. His committee’s efforts have not prevented further scandals. Principles on their own are not enough. In 1996, Chris Bryant, relinquishing Holy Orders to be an MP, complained that no bishop had given oral evidence to Nolan, and that bishops feared to risk showing political bias — to the detriment of the poor, immigrants, and “our partners in the Third World”. It is clear from Hansard and social media that at least some bishops are bolder now. And, while the C of E does not set the rules, it has the power, episcopally or synodically, to chide departures from them.

What can other churchpeople do to influence behaviour in public life? It has, first, to be said that, although Lord Nolan himself was a committed Roman Catholic, his seven are not the cardinal virtues and do not exhaust the attributes that might be expected of public figures. At least some Christians may regret that this or that form of conduct no longer falls under censure or is regarded as a resigning matter. But expectations of leaders have to have a realistic proximity to expectations of followers. To raise the moral bar, Christians are wise if they begin with themselves and deal fairly. Prayer, most would agree, and personal contact can be more influential than open criticism, which tends to rebound: the Church is often told to “put its own house in order”. But that, in a sense, is what the electorate does in a General Election. A term or two in government is the most that the system normally sustains before canker appears in the ruling party: discipline requires alternation — and participation. Christians cannot wield influence, in civil society, at the ballot box, in the determination of party candidacies and manifestos, or in the difficult arena of government itself, by holding aloof. Active Christians need not all be activists, but all, so far as they are able, have a duty to be active citizens.