I reply simply that advice is one thing and campaigning is quite different. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in 1991 the High Court ruling which rejected the application for charitable status of the human rights organisation Amnesty International clearly asserted that any body campaigning for the changing of laws of either the domestic or a foreign Government cannot operate as a charity.

Despite such clear guidance, the commission's record and view towards infringements are unacceptable. Oxfam, the subject of the latest inquiry, is far from being the only development charity breaking the legal guidelines, but its activities are especially significant. Not only is it the United Kingdom's largest charity, with an income of £62 million, but it has been the object of a stream of complaints from the general public, resulting in four previous official commission inquiries, which at best can be described as whitewashes. The complaints involved Oxfam's support for the World Disarmament Campaign in 1981, and for the Nicaraguan Government in 1985, the pamphlet "The Arms Race Kills" in 1985 and its pro-Palestinian position in 1989. Indeed, in response to the 1985 "The Arms Race Kills" pamphlet, the commission concluded that Oxfam may have strayed into an area of political controversy unrelated to their activities", but went on to say that We do not propose to take this matter any further". The trustees of Oxfam clearly hold the commission's regulatory ambitions in contempt. Despite Oxfam receiving some £12·5 million per annum from the taxpayer and the evidence of abuse of status over the past 10 years, the commission seems satisfied with public smacks on the knuckles, accompanied by private reassurances of support and cover to the charity's legal advisers.

Clearly, the Charity Commissioners perform a necessary role in providing a supportive service for those running existing charities or contemplating new ones. That should also involve advice on where the bounds of charitable status lie, as clearly defined in law. However, it is equally clear that the commission cannot, and should not, be expected to continue to act as defence counsel, judge and jury in cases of political abuse of charitable status. To expect it to advise Oxfam on how to stay within the commission's interpretation of the law and simultaneously to uphold the public and taxpayers' interest is a contradiction which cannot be resolved within existing structures.

We do not expect the national health service or local government to police themselves. Instead, we have set up a range of ombudsmen who together offer the prospect of independent and just redress after investigating complaints. The ombudsman system has won almost universal praise. I submit that we need a charities ombudsman as well.

There are two separate, easily definable areas of administering and scrutinising charities: the day-to-day administration and assistance, which should be carried out by the charities' trustees with assistance from the Charity Commission, and the investigation of complaints. It is neither practicable nor reasonable to expect the Charity Commission to carry out both functions—a task riddled with conflicts of interest.

That issue lies at the heart of charity and charities. Charities are predominantly funded—directly through donations and indirectly through taxation—by the general public. The fact that under the present system the decision whether complaints from ordinary citizens should be taken up lies in the hands of the same body which renders advice to charities makes a mockery of public accountability. In the rare event that a formal inquiry is launched, the Charity Commission has no responsibility to report its full findings either to the complainant or to the public as a whole. In the case of Oxfam, indications are that this conflict of interest has resolved itself in favour of the charity concerned and against the public interest. Only with the creation of an independent body, such as an ombudsman, directly responsible to the public and accountable to Parliament, can the uncertainty of the present system be resolved.

I recommend to the Government the suggestions for reform made recently by the International Freedom Foundation, to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred, and with which I am quite happy to admit that I have some association, but in which I have no direct interest and from which I receive no direct payment. That group's complaints against Oxfam were vindicated by the commission's recent inquiry.

The suggestion is that responsibility for the investigation of complaints against English and Welsh charities should be removed from the Charity Commission. The remainder of its work should remain with it, and it would remain responsible to the Home Office and to Parliament for the fulfilment of those duties.

Secondly, it is suggested that we should create an ombudsman for charities with supporting staff and central Government funding, modelled on the successful example of existing ombudsmen. Complaints of political and other abuse of charitable status would be sent to the ombudsman who would be responsible to the public for examining and adjudicating on complaints within the existing clear definition of abuse.

The mainstream of public confidence in the charitable sector is essential if the unique contribution that it makes to society is to be enhanced, but that public confidence is now at risk. The small minority of charities that are ineptly run, fraudulent or wish to play politics with taxpayers' money bring disgrace to the whole community. New structures are needed to bring them back into line with the law.