SIR CHRISTOPHER KELLY KCB

10 JANUARY 2008

  Q20  Jenny Willott: Given that there are some areas that already the Committee has revisited, do you foresee a process of going back over the areas and updating and so on or do you think there are a lot of other areas that you could be moving into or do you feel that it is time to change the remit of the Committee so you are more able, for example, to look at individual cases?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I suspect we would get lost if we looked at individual cases, particularly since there are now so many other people in that business. I think it is important to keep a balance. One of the advantages of being a standing committee is that we do not just make recommendations and then go away and that is it. If the recommendations are not accepted, or if they are accepted and implemented in a way other than we have recommended, or if they do not work as well as we thought, we have the advantage of being able to go back and revisit and chase and do all those sorts of things. But I am also sure that there is a whole host of other areas in which the Committee needs to be active. One of the things I have been doing and am going to continue to do over the next few weeks is to talk to other people about what our next major area of inquiry will be. There are clearly several possibilities there, some of which were set out in the Committee's last annual report.

  Q21  Jenny Willott: That leads nicely into my next question. It sounds as if you do feel that there is a role for the Committee in continuing to campaign, in effect, for the recommendations that you make in the report.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Indeed.

  Q22  Jenny Willott: One of the recent reports that you did was about the role of the Electoral Commission.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes.

  Q23  Jenny Willott: There were recommendations about changing the remit and powers of the Electoral Commission. Is this something that you think the Committee will be working on, to keep pushing that agenda to try to ensure it does come about?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: We were very pleased that the bulk of the recommendations made in that report were accepted, particularly those about improving the focus of the Electoral Commission and making it a more active regulator. Not all of our recommendations were accepted. I suspect, subject to talking to the other members of the Committee, that the thing we will particularly want to continue to push for is individual electoral registration. I know there are lots of issues around that. It is something which the Committee felt very strongly about.

  Q24  Jenny Willott: When Sir Alistair came before us in the past, he told us that he had offered to the Government to look at certain subjects that the Committee thought needed to be investigated—such as honours, party funding and business appointments—and yet they were effectively refused by the Government. Do you think it is right that the Government should have effectively a veto over the Committee's subjects?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: My understanding, and the understanding on which I took on the job, is that the Government does not have a veto over what the Committee does. It makes sense for us to consult with the Government about what we are going to do, as we consult with other people, but I would not have taken on the job if I thought I was only able to do inquiries on the subjects that the Government found it helpful for us to inquire into.

  Q25  Jenny Willott: You would be prepared to push ahead regardless, even if it was made clear to you that the Government was displeased?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Of course. I have to listen to the arguments and if I thought the arguments for not including it at that particular time were strong ones then I would accept that. But I certainly would not think that any member of the Committee would be prepared to not do something simply because the Government would not like it. What is the point of having an independent committee if you work on that basis?

  Q26  Mr Prentice: You told us at the outset that you had been head-hunted.

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes.

  Q27  Mr Prentice: Were there any other candidates in the frame?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I am not the right person to answer that question. As I understand it, yes, there were.

  Q28  Mr Prentice: Who interviewed you?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I was interviewed by the Secretary to the Cabinet; the man who, I think at the time the process was started, was permanent secretary at the Justice Department but who has since moved on to other duties in the Cabinet Office; and by an independent assessor.

  Q29  Mr Prentice: What was the most testing question you were asked? Or did you just sail through it effortlessly?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I certainly did not sail through it effortlessly.

  Q30  Mr Prentice: What was the most difficult question, then?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: It may sound pathetic to say so but I honestly cannot remember.

  Q31  Mr Prentice: You have no recollection. We are going to have a difficult time with you! Were you disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition was not consulted before you were appointed?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Yes.

  Q32  Mr Prentice: Why was that the case?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I do not know. If I had been asked, I would have said that I thought it was absolutely essential that whoever does this role has the confidence of all three political parties.

  Q33  Mr Prentice: And you would like to see your successor only appointed after agreement had been given by the Leader of the Opposition?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I do not know whether I would go so far as agreement. I certainly think there ought to be consultation.

  Q34  Mr Prentice: Have you ever met Gordon Brown?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I met Gordon Brown within 24 hours of being appointed to the post.

  Q35  Mr Prentice: Had you met him before you were appointed?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I had.

  Q36  Mr Prentice: Was he involved in any way in the appointment process?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Not as far as I know.[3]

  Q37 Mr Prentice: Did it shock you—as a matter that is `on the record', common knowledge—that your predecessor Alistair Graham, despite being quite critical of the then Prime Minister on a number of occasions, had never sought a meeting with Tony Blair. Did that surprise you?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I have talked to him about that and I am told that he was not the only holder of this post whose contact with the Prime Minister was through the Cabinet Secretary, but the answer to the question is: yes, it did surprise me.

  Q38  Mr Prentice: What are you going to do about it?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: Gordon Brown himself made it clear to me that he would expect to see me regularly. I did not have to ask him; he told me.

  Q39  Mr Prentice: How regularly is regularly?

  Sir Christopher Kelly: I do not know. That remains to be seen, does it not?