SIR CHRISTOPHER KELLY KCB

10 JANUARY 2008

  Q40  Paul Flynn: You have told us that you believe you will have a choice in the subjects that you investigate.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes.

  Q41  Paul Flynn: In the inquiry you had with the public, you asked the respondents what events might have influenced the answers they gave on their perception of any changes in the standards in public life. They gave three main subjects: the war on Iraq; the Hutton inquiry; and the dossier on Iraqi arms—and other subjects were fairly insignificant. We have these three subjects, all involving the Iraq war and the decision that the previous Government and Parliament took to go to Iraq, which has involved the loss of 280 British lives and a great deal of other problems as well. Would you not think this would be a fine subject to look at: the standards of the information and knowledge provided to the country and to Parliament on the decision to join the war in Iraq?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: That is an interesting question. I do not know what discussion of those issues took place of course under my—

  Q42  Paul Flynn: That is the problem: neither do we.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I cannot help you with that.

  Q43  Paul Flynn: Do you not regard it as being possibly a fine subject to look at: the standards that exist, the standards of information that we have for examining decisions of such enormous importance? The allegation is that the information supplied to Parliament was untrue—the two dossiers that were supplied—on which most of us around this table were asked to take a decision which resulted in the loss of British lives, amongst other things too as far as Britain is concerned. Is this not a matter that goes to the core of your role in looking at standards in public life?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I have two sorts of responses to that. One is that my understanding is that our research and other research shows that honesty is the key requirement for trust in those who take part in public life. Whether or not, in the instances you have mentioned, honesty is what has been shown, requires investigation; it does not seem to me that the remit of my Committee is the investigation of particular instances of that kind. I can say, as the last report said, that the way in which the Freedom of Information Act has operated and whether that has had the effect of raising standards of behaviour or simply of altering standards of behaviour is certainly one of the issues which may be subject to an inquiry by the Committee. But I am conscious that there is other work going on in that area.

  Q44  Paul Flynn: The evidence you have, again from the inquiry, is that the Committee's existence has made very little difference whatsoever and possibly the perception of standards has gone down in people's view. It is an extraordinary result: 38% of respondents saying it had stayed the same; 25% saying it had improved a little and 25% saying it had got a bit worse. A very tiny difference in perceptions over that period. Is this a disappointment?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: That is the same question that the Chairman asked me, in a sense. You have elided two things together there: the statement that the Committee has not had an effect and the fact that trust has gone down. I would adduce a lot of evidence that the Committee has had an effect on standards and could list the great number of things that have happened as a result of the Committee's recommendations.

  Q45  Paul Flynn: It is no secret that your predecessor was regarded as being troublesome by the Government towards the end of his period of office. He had a background as a trade unionist, I believe originally.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes.

  Q46  Paul Flynn: You have a background of 30 years as a civil servant, serving Margaret Thatcher and various other prime ministers of both parties. We all would agree with the merits of the ethos of the Civil Service but do you think you are the right person to challenge government in future when you have been a servant of government for 30 years?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Do I think I am the best person? That is for others to judge. Do I think I am capable of challenging government? Yes, of course.

  Q47  Paul Flynn: Do you think you were appointed because the Government regards you and the Prime Minister regards you as being safe?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: That, again, is the same question as I was asked. I can only give you the same answer. You will have to judge me by my performance in the role.

  Q48  Paul Flynn: Another major appointment that we have had, before you were appointed, is that of the Chairman of the new National Statistics Board, Michael Scholar.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Indeed.

  Q49  Paul Flynn: That went through a pre-appointment hearing with the Treasury Committee—something along the lines of the situation in America. Why was your appointment not treated in the same way?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I am not the person to ask.

  Q50  Paul Flynn: Do you think you would have had greater authority if you had come before the Select Committee?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes, I do. I was asked at one stage in the process whether I would be prepared to subject myself to pre-appointment scrutiny and I said yes.

  Q51  Paul Flynn: Will you be promoting hearings of that kind for similar appointments?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I do not yet know what the view of the Committee is on that, since I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with them. I can only give you my view about this role, which is that I think it very important, as I have already said, that I should have the confidence of all three main parties, and a pre-appointment scrutiny would have been one way of doing that.

  Q52  Mr Burrowes: Anthony King said that the Committee on Standards in Public Life "is not there to bark in my view but to give people who should do the barking some guidance as to when they should bark and an indication of the kind of behaviour that deserves to be barked at."[4] It may be said that your predecessor did a lot of barking. How much barking do you intend to do or do you leave it to others to do it?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: It is a great temptation to bark, is it not? I honestly do not know the answer to that question. I think it will depend on events. The principle is clear, that it is not the job of the Committee to investigate individual allegations of malpractice but it is the job of the Committee to monitor when that happens and to see whether there are any lessons to be learned about things that need to be changed to stop it happening in the future. Quite how much barking getting that balance right requires is something I expect I shall learn as I go along.

  Q53  Mr Burrowes: Your predecessor did some barking or snapping at the heels of David Blunkett. He was concerned about propriety in relation to his financial investments. Would you see that as an appropriate bark?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: You cannot possibly expect me to comment on something—

  Q54  Mr Burrowes: You would have an option, in relation to Peter Hain, for barking as to his propriety.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: What happened with Peter Hain and the donations to his deputy leadership campaign, as I understand it, is being looked at by the Electoral Commission, and that is absolutely the right thing to happen. The Committee will certainly discuss that and see whether or not there are lessons to be learned from the experience and I would guess—although, again, I am speaking for a Committee whose members I have not yet met—that the Committee would be concerned that, even now, not everyone appears to have understood the importance of being absolutely transparent about political donations. Is that a bark?

  Q55  Mr Burrowes: It is getting there. It could be interpreted as such. How much bite can you have when your funding and appointment is not independent and is subject to the Prime Minister's choice?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: The bite depends on us being able to make an overwhelming case based on evidence. The record of the Committee for getting its recommendations accepted is extremely high, although possibly not quite as high a rate in the recent past as in the early days.

  Q56  Mr Burrowes: Outsiders always question the strength of the bite. If there is not the independence (in terms of funding an appointment), would you prefer there to be that independence, as this Committee has recommended?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I understand that is an issue. Frankly, particularly not having discussed it with my own Committee, I am agnostic on that. I can see exactly the argument you are making. I suspect, also, that it would be easier to get the resources that the Committee needs if we were under the control of a commission of the kind you have suggested. On the other hand, my understanding is that present arrangements have worked well in the past. I am also conscious that there may be some issues, including some aspects of the way in which the legislature operates, which would be more difficult if we were a creature of Parliament rather than being appointed by the Prime Minister. There seem to me to be swings and roundabouts and, frankly, I would not want to express a firm view about that, never having had the opportunity to discuss it with members of my Committee.

  Q57  Mr Burrowes: Finally, when we discussed with your predecessor the continuing need of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, he said he would be very happy to cry victory: "We've arrived at nirvana," but he did not say he had arrived at that. In five years time, reflecting on it, would you consider you would be in a position to cry victory? How would you see that victory panning out?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: It would surprise me immensely to be able to cry victory after five years. The experience of—

  Q58  Mr Burrowes: For you, as the Chairman, what would be a victorious five years?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: A victorious five years would be evidence that standards in public life are higher at the end of that period than they were at the beginning. It would be a bonus if public trust was also higher. Frankly, I would not want to tie my success to that.

  Q59  Mr Liddell-Grainger: With respect, you strike me as a very boring man. Are you a boring man?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Am I a boring man? Probably.