New Clause 8
Charities Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Edward Miliband (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Cabinet Office; Doncaster North, Labour)
The problem with the new clause is that it would give powers to the independent complaints reviewer that already exist for the parliamentary ombudsman. The danger is that it would confuse the parliamentary ombudsman’s situation. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the 2004-05 report by Jodi Berg, the independent complaints reviewer, who says on page 3:
“In particular, an argument has been made for a new statutory office of Independent Complaints Reviewer, changing the basis of appointment and affording the office holder the power to award substantive compensation to those adversely affected by the Commission’s actions or omissions.
My personal view is that some caution needs to be exercised in relation to this proposal. There is already a statutory avenue for complaints about the Charity Commission, that being the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who is able to award redress for financial loss where she deems it necessary to do so. It is doubtful whether a potentially overlapping office would add anything for the citizen other than confusion. My own role, in common with other similar offices, is based on agreed terms of reference which underline my independence and authority.”
I tend to agree with the ICR.
There is a response open to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. He could ask, “How much power does the parliamentary ombudsman have, and will Government accept her recommendations?” I point out that the Charity Commission has always accepted the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendations, which is an important record. I cannot speak for the commission, but I think that it is good that it has done so. I do not think that the new clause is advisable, and I hope that he will withdraw it.