Good morning, colleagues, to our second meeting this week, where we are discharging a specific function of this Committee: the pre-appointment hearing of the Government’s preferred candidate to the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. I extend a warm welcome to Claire Bassett. Congratulations on getting this far in the application process. I do not have my piece of black cloth to put on top of my head to pass the sentence of death, but I am sure that one of the Clerks can run out and get me one if we need it. We have a variety of questions to ask you. In the interests of time and efficiency, focused questions and answers would be appreciated, because at the end we will go into private session to consider our report back to the Cabinet Office on our assessment of your appropriateness. You probably know all that, but that is just for the record and for the public, who I am told by the Clerk on my left are viewing in massive numbers—that I will believe, or not. Let us crack on with Mr Lamont.

Good morning, Ms Bassett. What motivated you to apply for this role?

Thank you. The first part of that would be the importance of the role. I recognise that it is a fairly niche role within the broader ethics and transparency landscape, but one of the themes right through my career has been public trust and confidence in public services. This continues that, and is an opportunity to do that. Alongside that, I think it utilises my experience that I have gained through my career, both executive and non-exec, such as at the Electoral Commission but also doing investigations, working with a range of professional, parliamentary and public stakeholders. It was a really good opportunity for me to do what I am interested in and utilise those skills and experience.

Thank you, that is helpful. You noted that you were contacted by the Cabinet Office to alert you to the vacancy. Was that a personal approach? Are you aware of why the Cabinet Office made that approach directly to you?

I imagine that they were acting as headhunters, going through LinkedIn or somewhere like that, looking for people with the relevant skills and sending out emails, and I responded to that. It did not feel particularly personal, but I do not know—you’d have to ask them.

So it was a headhunter who approached you?

It was the appointments team within the Cabinet Office, who were fulfilling that function for this role, I think.

Was that part of a wider process of how good candidates like you are alerted?

That is my experience, yes.

Okay. And why do you think you were appointed?

I think I went through a fairly robust interview process, and both in application and interview, against the criteria, I think I was able to demonstrate and pull out the examples that I have of my commitment to this agenda, my interest in the role, and my fit to it.

I come to this with the benefit of having done that several times already. I have moved between sectors and I am very clear what my skillset is, and I also understand what it is not. For example, when I moved into trade remedies, I knew very little about tariffs and international trade, and I had to get up to speed with that quite quickly. I think it is important to do it with a proper plan and recognise the deficit, and look at what you need to do. That usually involves meeting a full range of stakeholders: both the internal ones in the organisations—in this case in the Department—but also thinking about different groups around it, the lobbyists themselves and those who are being lobbied. It is getting that full range and spectrum of opinion and expertise. I think not knowing is a unique position—you can ask the naughty questions. I have always found that really useful and felt that it is important to take advantage of that. To some degree, that has started through the process already. I have had conversations with the outgoing Registrar and others as part of this process, and I have also started reading around the topic and listening to things like podcasts. I have listened to previous PACAC hearings where you have looked at—

You’re the viewer!

I’m that one, yes.

I’ll sign autographs later.

It is a range of things like that.

That is a very practical thing. You have to set very clear boundaries and expectations, be very clear about them and follow them—things like making sure you have minutes of meetings, notes of who you meet and when, and notes of what you attend. Given the nature of this role, being sensible about what you attend is going to be particularly pertinent—and keeping those records. It is also important to recognise that you can remain independent, as I have done in a number of my previous roles, while taking an interest in the sector, making sure you understand it and looking around it. It is also about recognising that the lobbyists are the subject of the register, but that there are other stakeholders around it as well—making sure there is equal space.

I don’t think there is anything significant, other than what we have covered. It is probably important to recognise the nature of this role as a corporation sole. It would be the first time I have done a role like that. I have been an accounting officer several times, but I have not had a corporation sole appointment, so I would need to make sure that I understood both the limitations and the expectations of that. I would be coming back into this part of ethics and transparency, and I would need to make sure that I understood that wider agenda.

Can I ask you a personal question? Would you describe yourself as a pragmatist or an ideologue?

Pragmatist.

That is good to hear. In the governance of public life, including the lobbying sector, do you still think that discretion and discernment are important, or are you a person who says, “The rulebook says this at little paragraph 7, and there’s no scope for interpretation”?

I think you have to find the sensible middle ground—she says, trying to give you a pragmatic answer. The rules are there for a reason, and they should be respected. Certainly if you are in a regulatory role that is set out in legislation, you need to follow that. This role is important because it is quite a narrow role, so you have to recognise that. You need to follow the rules, but you have to be sensible in their interpretation.

With the caveat that it should be done well, properly, professionally and within the rules, do you see lobbying as a good thing?

Yes, I think it is. Lobbying is about access and sharing information with people who are developing and forming policy and making decisions. I have a niece who is very passionate about junk food and young people. If you ask her, yes, she will say that she does not think “big food” should have unrestricted access without any accountability, but she does not want to be stopped talking to people either. What people like her would want, I think, is a level playing field and that access. On the board of the Law Commission, we are doing really novel areas of law, with some of the work they are doing. We do not have that in Government, and it is important that new expertise and understanding can be brought in and understood. So I do think—as you say, done well and done right—it is a good thing.

As you know, you will be expected to spend around 45 days a year discharging this role. It may be more, obviously, as circumstances demand. You are currently the Property Ombudsman and hold a number of non-executive roles. How can you demonstrate to this Committee that you have the time to devote 45 days to this important role, as well as the time flexibility should the 45 days be exceeded?

Just to correct you, I am the chair of the Property Ombudsman; there is an ombudsman as well—I do not want to do Lesley out of her role. I want to be as transparent as possible about this, and I have set out for you in writing the roles that I have. That comes in at somewhere around 13 or 15 days, and 45 days would take that up to roughly full time. I did not move into a portfolio in order not to work; I want to have that balance. One thing that having a portfolio affords is flexibility, though, in that very few of those roles want me to do 10 till 12 on Tuesday every week. They want me to be available, to be able to attend meetings, and to be at the end of the phone and able to step up my input when there is something that needs that leadership or that extra board meeting. I have quite a lot of flexibility in that. As I have said and written, one of my appointments comes to an end at Christmas and another one ends next year. That will afford me a bit more flexibility, and I do not intend to replace those. The reason I was not looking when the Cabinet Office approached me is that I was going to start looking in about three or four months’ time. I am going to be a bit busier in the run-up to Christmas, but I think that I can manage that—I have the flexibility to do that.

You have referenced a number of other appointments that you hold, or have held in the recent past. Do any of those organisations employ consultant lobbyists?

Not that I am aware of.

Have you checked?

I have checked for currently. Whether they have done in the past, I am not sure.

Once your inquiry has been answered, if they did employ consultant lobbyists, how would you propose to mitigate that potential conflict?

This is a tricky one, given the nature of the role and the corporation sole. I see it is on the risk register, in fact, for the organisation, so it is something that has to be taken very seriously and will have to have a lot of thought. Having spoken to the office, I think that there are processes in place, which seem very sensible to me, for noting any particular conflict early on, making sure that the role of the office and the decisions are all very clear, and if necessary reporting it up to the director of the Cabinet Office, should that occur. I would follow that process and be very alive to the risk of conflict.

Would you recuse yourself?

I think I would have to if there was a significant conflict. I am not sure, at this stage, what would then happen. That is something that I would need to explore, should I be successful, and put something in place. Similarly, if I were to become incapacitated, what would happen?

The current Registrar has highlighted a number of areas where lobbying transparency needs to be improved, but it does not look as if the Government are in a hurry to address them. How would you try to deal with those weaknesses?

I think that the current Registrar has done a really good job of highlighting those, as indeed has PACAC in its review of the legislation. I think there are a range of things that could be done through secondary legislation, and some that need primary legislation. I would continue to make that case, as he has done. I have not started in the post yet, so it is difficult to know what the appetite is, because I have not had those conversations with anyone. But I would be very keen to do that, and to engage with Ministers and the Department about that change, if that would be appropriate. The final point is that it is really important that the work that is being done already is done well and continues to be done well. I would make sure that there is emphasis on that as well.

Continuing with transparency, what balance do you envisage between your role in applying the legislation as it stands and, as you have touched on, advocating for ways to improve it?

I think you have to understand the limitations of the role as it stands and of the current legislation. I think it is appropriate for the role holder to push for improvement to that particular rule as it stands. You have to recognise, though, that going beyond that you are getting into policymaking arenas that are not the responsibility of the Registrar, and you need to be mindful of that. However, I do not think that stops the Registrar building good expertise that they can bring to the table and contribute to that wider reform debate, should it be invited or appropriate.

Earlier on, in answers to the Chair, you said that you were pragmatic and that you would apply flexibility. Do you think that there is any room for applying flexibility to improve transparency?

I am not sure. From what I have seen of what the previous Registrar said, in the past there has been some scope for improving the guidance and resolving some of the ambiguities in it. His view is that that has been taken as far as it can be. I have not looked; I do not know, but I have no reason to disagree with that. Call it pragmatic, but that is the opportunity for improving that part of it. From what he has said, he now feels that further change needs either primary or secondary legislation.

Where do you see the place of the Registrar in the wider ethics and standards landscape?

Going back to my last answer, it is important not to overstep that mark of the role and try to be something beyond. It really strikes me when looking at this that it is a register—it is not regulation or an ombudsman—and it is about delivering that register. That is what the ask is for the moment, and focusing on that. However, I do think—and I have seen this in other spheres I have worked in—if you are one cog in a bigger wheel and if you can help that bigger machine work better and are invited to do so, it is useful to do that. But I do not have any detailed idea or thought on that at this stage.

Just fleshing it out a little, if I may, you replied to Mr Lamont’s question about the Cabinet Office contacting you, so you are clearly regarded highly by the Government machine as somebody capable and competent of discharging roles within the public sector. You have told us, perfectly properly, that you envisage a sort of portfolio career at this current stage. Against that backdrop, what assurance can you give us that, if you are appointed and are able to progress, you are able to speak truth to power—to say, “Look, the holding pattern that the Government are proposing is not enough.” You might need to make yourself a bit of a nuisance with Ministers, with this Committee and others, to try to drive an agenda of rule change, typing up of new regulations and new legislation coming forward. That might of course jeopardise future calls from the Cabinet Office saying, “Oi, Claire, do you fancy being x, y or z?”—whatever is currently on the stocks. Can you give us that assurance that you can speak truth to power without fear or favour?

I think I can. Anyone who knows me well knows that I have never—

We don’t, which is why we are asking the question.

I have certainly never been scared of speaking truth to power, and one of the things I have very deliberately done in my portfolio is make it a mixture of organisations. This would be only my second appointment in my portfolio that was a public appointment of this nature: my other ones are appointed by the bodies themselves. I do have a good mix, and I have never wanted to just be a one-type person, because it does give me that flexibility and ability to do that. I am also someone who is able to balance that pragmatism and seek to resolve things in an undramatic way, if that is the better way forward. Ultimately, if you have to be unpopular, so be it.

Are you prepared to be so?

Yes.

Good.

I apologise for being late, I was delayed by the tube strike. Your answers to the questionnaire were really helpful, and thank you for going into such detail. You will no doubt be aware of the seven principles of public life. I wondered if you could give us a couple of examples of those and how you have met them.

I genuinely do believe in them, and I have chosen a career in public service because they meet with my values which are similar. I was just thinking about this, and there are a few examples, such as—it is perhaps a slightly controversial one—delivering the EU referendum, when I was at the Electoral Commission. I worked with Jenny, the chair there, but also the team to deliver that, and we did it in a way that ensured that no one questioned the integrity of the outcome. There might have been a lot of asks around who did what, but the delivery of the poll itself was done in a way that was full of integrity, and we built in checks and balances. That is a good example. Elsewhere in my career, at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, I led the team that highlighted a number of major issues in policing. Again, I think that shows a willingness to speak up and encourage transparency in publishing those reports. Finally, I think, at the Parole Board, our focus was on hearings for prisoners but I met victims and took the time to explain to them why we were having hearings for offenders who had committed really serious offences against them and their family members. That willingness to be held to account, in public and privately, has been really important, as well as that integrity and objectivity in how you do it.

Thank you. That is a really comprehensive answer. On a slightly different topic then, how do you envisage having a relationship with this Committee during your time in office?

Well, I do think that public scrutiny is very important. I was trying to work it out, but I think I have been to PACAC five times before, back in my Electoral Commission days, and I really value it. I think it is an opportunity to be challenged. It is also an opportunity to raise things, if that is appropriate, and, as a leader, it makes you step back and ask how you account for yourself. Just the preparation process is really valuable, so I would welcome the opportunity to come back and account for it, should I be successful.

Is there anything that you were or are particularly keen to land with us as you set out your sales pitch, as it were, that you have not been asked?

I do not think so, no. Thank you.

Let me ask the other question. Is there anything you are pleased that we have not asked you?

No—I think you have covered good ground.

Let us cast forward to a successful outcome to this stage in the process. What should we be looking for as the Committee charged with oversight? What should the public be looking for? What will you be looking for that will define—let’s start on the optimistic side—the success, or failure, of your tenure in post?

I think I would put it into three buckets. The first would be the effective delivery of the operation, of the statutory remit and, if necessary, of enforcement and compliance. Those are the hard measures, if you like—that the right people are on the register and that that is being enforced and delivered. The second bit would then be feedback on how that is being done, both from yourselves as a Committee and from other stakeholders, both internally and externally. Then, I think, the third area, should it be appropriate, would be that contribution to wider reform.

And failure?

I guess it would be not to do those things well. It also may be that the system is tested and does not stand up, and that may be for reasons that are failings within the office, but it could be wider than that, in the system.

You will be aware that we are living in a time of cynical populism—the blob, the establishment, the oh-too-cosy relationship between big business and policymakers and deciders and so on. Do you see—if you do not, that is fine, but I would urge you to think again—that there is a place for this putative role in explaining to the wider public and our all-too-cynical media that there are robust rules in place, that they are enforceable, that there are sanctions and that it is an iterative process, and that despite the cynicism of perceived “corruption” or “undue influence” it is not something that, in the actualité, actually exists?

Gosh, that is a big question. I am really in favour of transparency. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, isn’t it?

It is not quite transparency. This is about proactive advocacy to explain to a cynical public the robust tramrails and frameworks that are in place.

Yes. You have to recognise the limitation on that; the nature of the role is quite limited and the nature of the register is limited, but you can hold that up as an example of good practice for how transparency can be done, although you would have to do that cognisant of the wider reform that might be needed.

Colleagues, any further questions for Ms Bassett? No. Ms Bassett, is there anything further you want to leave with us?

No, just thank you.

We are grateful to you for your time and we will now go into private session to consider our report, but we are grateful to you for your time, for taking our questions this morning and for adhering to my strictures at the start—we have had pithy questions and pithy answers, for which I am obliged.