Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for plugging away at this, because there certainly is a problem. My view of how to deal with it has been altered as a result of speaking with the Parliamentary Ombudsman—I have done so twice since Committee—and discovering that what I said on the previous occasion is not as true as I thought; that is to say, the notion that I harboured that the Parliamentary Ombudsman would not get involved unless High Court remedies have been exhausted is not correct. There is no need, in order for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to be engaged, for legal remedies through the courts to be pursued. However, if legal action has been commenced, the Parliamentary Ombudsman will not intervene while they are on foot. The other inhibition to a remedy—to get to the parliamentary ombudsman, who is the only person who can grant what I would call proper compensation—is that one has to go to an MP. I am told that that is not a problem in practice. It occurred to me when having conversations with both Ann Abraham, the ombudsman, and with the Independent Complaints Reviewer, that there is far too little understanding within the sector about the availability of access to the commissioner when a charity wants real compensation rather than a modest conciliatory reward. We need to broadcast the availability of the parliamentary ombudsman. It is for those reasons that I am inclined to think that the creation of a new piece of legislative machinery to create a specific ombudsman for the sector might be premature. I feel that the sector should get its own act together and realise the prospects that there are via the parliamentary ombudsman. We should give that a go before proliferating a further bespoke ombudsperson. I hope that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, too much if I do not support him at this stage.