Integrity, Ethics and Professional Conduct
What this domain tests
Integrity and ethics questions test whether you can use public authority honestly, impartially and confidentially. Scenarios involve gifts, conflicts of interest, access to personal data, use of force, discriminatory comments and pressure to speed up or alter a decision.
Core rules
- Act lawfully and within authority. Being asked by a senior colleague does not make an unlawful act lawful.
- Impartiality: decide on the evidence, not on the applicant's nationality, religion, wealth or personal appeal. Declare any personal or financial connection to a case.
- Confidentiality and data protection: access applicant data only for a lawful work purpose. Do not look up friends, relatives, celebrities or your own records, and do not share data informally.
- Gifts and hospitality: refuse or declare according to policy. A small gift can still create an obligation or the appearance of one.
- Report misconduct through the proper channel. Failing to report corruption or a serious breach can itself be misconduct.
- Proportionate use of authority: force, detention and deception controls must be lawful, necessary and the least intrusive option available.
Worked example
An applicant places 200 pounds on the counter and says, 'Please make sure it goes through quickly.' Best response: refuse the money, explain that you cannot accept payment or gifts and that decisions are made on the evidence, and report the offer under the gifts and corruption procedure. Record the incident factually. Reasoning: accepting the money would be bribery or, at minimum, a serious integrity breach. Simply returning it without reporting may leave the attempt undisclosed. The decision itself must be unaffected; the applicant should not be penalized for the offer unless policy or law provides for it.
Traps
- Rationalizing a 'small' gift as harmless.
- Using a work database to check a neighbour, friend or public figure.
- Letting a personal connection affect a decision without declaring it.
- Staying silent about a colleague's falsified record 'to avoid trouble'.
- Confusing customer service with granting unlawful favours.