SIR CHRISTOPHER KELLY KCB

10 JANUARY 2008

  Q1 Chairman: It is my pleasure to welcome Sir Christopher Kelly, who has recently been appointed as the new Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. You are the fifth such chairman.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I am.

  Q2  Chairman: There was a brief interregnum but it is very good now to have you in place. I think you have started work, have you not?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I have.

  Q3  Chairman: We thought it would be a very nice idea, as we have a continuing relationship with the Committee, to exchange some thoughts right at the beginning. Congratulations on the appointment. Is there anything you would like to say to the Committee by way of introduction?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Just a very few words, if I may. I am delighted to have been appointed to the post and I think it is very appropriate that my first public appearance, as it were, should be here before the Committee. My appointment is for a single five-year term, which of course results from an earlier recommendation by your Committee. Five years gives me a decent period to get on with the job. I hope to deliver sustained results over the period, without the issue of reappointment, so I am grateful for that recommendation. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor Rita Donaghy, who served on an interim basis between last spring and the end of December, and, of course, Alistair Graham. I am conscious of the importance of the role and the very high standards that they and their predecessors have set and I am determined to uphold those standards in terms of robust independence; evidence-based, proportionate recommendations and, of course, encouragement of high standards for public office holders. As you have said, Chairman, this is my first full week in the job. I have spent most of the last few days going around and talking to some of the key stakeholders, including, in view of the Committee's last discussion on the development of this role, the Prime Minister, to get their views on how the Committee can be most effective and what ought to be our programme for the next few years. I would be very happy to answer any questions, but I am sure the Committee will appreciate that I may not be quite as on top of some of the detail as I hope to be at a later stage.

  Q4  Chairman: That is very helpful. Was it a job that you wanted (that is, that you saw and applied for) or was it a job that you were found for?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I was approached by head-hunters. Having had the discussion with the head-hunters, I decided it was a job I wanted.

  Q5  Chairman: They came to you and said, "We've seen this job and we think you are the man. Why don't you have a go for it?"

  Sir Christopher Kelly: They did what head-hunters normally do, yes.

  Q6  Chairman: Which is that, is it not?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Which is that, yes.

  Q7  Chairman: What was the attraction for you of the job?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: The attraction for me of the job was the importance of the role. To have high standards in public life is important, it goes without saying, for all kinds of reasons, including the contribution it makes or does not make to engagement in the democratic process. It is a job that some of my experience gives me a chance of being able to do in what I hope will be an effective way. It is that combination: the importance of the role and some expectation of competence to do it.

  Q8  Chairman: Do you think you will be seen as a safe pair of hands? Your background is within government, a former permanent secretary. You come from inside the system. There have been some difficulties with having a non-insider in the post latterly. Do you think that the system and the outside world will see you as a safe pair of hands?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I hope I will be a safe pair of hands. As I have said, this is an important role and it is important that it should be done sensibly and properly. I am conscious that some people, particularly in view of the way in which my predecessor went, might think I was a replacement to make sure that the Committee did not rock the boat. I think that my actions will demonstrate that that is not going to be the case.

  Q9  Chairman: Tell us about your robust independence. That is really what I am asking for. The question is: Are you an establishment placeman or are you someone who brings robust independence to the job?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: That is a real "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, and it is quite difficult to do anything other than to assert that I have. One relevant factor is that I left the Civil Service now almost seven years ago. I have been doing quite a lot since then. I never had any difficulty in feeling independent and giving independent advice to ministers while I was within the three departments in which I worked, and I certainly have not had any difficulty in doing that since. For example, if you look at the record of the NSPCC,[1] of which I have been Chairman for the last six years, you will find that the NSPCC is an organisation that works constructively with government but has no difficulty at all in criticising what government does if that seems appropriate in pursuit of the objectives they have.

  Q10 Chairman: When you worked inside government, and based upon your experience of working inside government, were you conscious then of there being public standards issues which needed to be tackled?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes, I was conscious of that. Who could fail to be? I was also conscious of the fact that the standards of most of the people with whom I worked were extremely high. Part of the irony, it seems to me, is that public trust in the integrity of public life has deteriorated at the same time—and partly as a result of the recommendations that you have made and my predecessors have made—as standards have improved.

  Q11  Chairman: I was going to ask you about that. What were the issues that you thought needed tackling? You went on to say that in fact standards were very high, but what were the issues that needed tackling?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Many of the issues that have been tackled since this Committee was established. I say this as much from having been a citizen as having been a civil servant inside the Treasury and two other departments. They are things like the lack of clarity of some of the rules or the non-existence of some of the rules under which people are supposed to conduct themselves. I am thinking of things like paid-for lobbying by MPs and so on.

  Q12  Chairman: I think there is an issue about paid-for lobbying—

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I thought there was. You asked me during my time in the Civil Service.

  Q13  Chairman: It is very helpful to know this: that you think as a former permanent secretary there is an issue.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I thought there was until the issue was dealt with.

  Q14  Chairman: If all the issues have been dealt with, it does not leave you much of a job. What are the issues that have not been dealt with?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: It is certainly the case that the role of the Committee is different from what it was when it was first established. If you look at the first round of reports, it is quite clear that the Committee was going around each area of public life in turn—central government, local government, NDPBs[2] and so on. That phase of the Committee is past. On the other hand, there is quite clearly a continuing need for the Committee, as this Select Committee has itself acknowledged, in reviewing those arrangements that have been put in place over the last few years—as, indeed, the Committee has done—and also because it would be a foolish person to pretend that there were not other issues requiring examination.

  Q15 Chairman: Let me ask you one final question on something to which you alluded just now. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has been in operation now since 1994. That is a long time. You would have expected that 14 years of the existence of the Committee would have produced increased public reassurance about standards and their monitoring and their maintenance, but all the evidence is that public feelings have gone in the other direction.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes.

  Q16  Chairman: This must be a conundrum for you. How is this to be explained?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: The business of trust in holders of public office is of course an extremely complex one which is not just to do with the perception of standards but also the way in which things are reported and a host of other factors. Indeed, some of the things that have been done in order to promote higher standards might have had the effect of lowering public appreciation. I am thinking in particular of transparency. It seems to me that transparency is a very important principle, both in the sense of protecting public office holders against allegations that they have behaved improperly but also in making it more difficult for improper behaviour to happen, but transparency also creates a greater opportunity for the press and others to point to particular examples where people have fallen below the highest standards. I suspect that a lot of things happened before the Committee was established that, if they had been in the public light, would have been front page news in newspapers. I think transparency has had some effect on that.

  Chairman: I am sure colleagues will want to explore those matters with you.

  Q17  Jenny Willott: There is a dilemma between the standards in public life and public perception. Do you feel that the Committee has a role just in the standards or do you feel you have a role in trying to improve the perception so that it relates more closely to the reality?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: In answering this question, as others, I am giving you my personal views without having the benefit of the wisdom and experience of the Committee. I have not even had my first meeting. I sometimes think—indeed, I was talking to your Chairman a few days ago and he said the same thing—that part of the public distrust could be allayed—part of it—if people were conscious of some of the arrangements that already exist to promote good behaviour. I am thinking, in particular, of allegations of cronyism in public appointments when, if people understood the care that is now taken over public appointments, some of that concern might be allayed.

  Q18  Jenny Willott: Does that mean, therefore, that you feel the Committee has a role in making that clearer to people?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: We have very limited resources at our disposal. It does seem to me that part of the promotion of standards and part of what we and I and the other members of the Committee say in public ought to serve that purpose. It is certainly not something we can do alone.

  Q19  Jenny Willott: Do you think it would make it easier for your Committee to operate if there was wider public understanding of the mechanisms there are already?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I am not sure that I see how it would make the work of the Committee easier, but I think it would be important in its own right that that should happen. Again, I speak from a high degree of ignorance. I am not sure that those bodies themselves do enough to promote what it is they do.

2   Non-departmental Public Bodies Back