Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc. between Ombudsmen) Order 2007

My Lords, as the Minister may know, I have a particular interest in the subject matter of the order because I have introduced several Private Member's Bills, each designed to secure a direct right of public access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, as is the case with all other parliamentary ombudsmen in all other jurisdictions, Commonwealth or European. On each occasion, I have been told to wait until there are wider reforms. This is a very sensible order that no sane person would oppose, because it is a very good idea to enable the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman to work together collaboratively. The very helpful Cabinet Office note accompanying the order refers to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place. In paragraph 9, we are helpfully told: "““As permitted by its Standing Orders … the House of Commons Committee also commented in its report on a further matter that arose in their consideration of the proposal. As part of its detailed scrutiny, the Committee noted that the retention of the ‘MP filter’ system, whereby complaints could only be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman via a Member of Parliament, was criticised by a number of respondents to the consultation. ""The Committee approached the Cabinet Office during the initial scrutiny phase about removal of the ‘MP filter’, and records in its report that it was content with the Department’s assessment that a Regulatory Reform Order would not be an appropriate vehicle for making such changes, and that these changes could only be made by primary legislation””." In the light of that, I have two questions for the Minister, and would be grateful for some information. First, I take it from the above that the House of Commons committee approached the Cabinet Office because it wanted to see some form of the present system in operation—there are ways of doing this—to ensure that the public had a more direct form of public access. The problem was that, even though that was its view, it was persuaded, for reasons that I understand, that this could be dealt with only through primary legislation. Is that the position, and is that why it approached the Cabinet Office? If so, I greatly welcome that. Secondly, this anomaly has lasted since 1967, and successive Parliamentary Ombudsmen have drawn attention to it again and again as they have sought to be freed from this unnecessary restraint on accessto them. This has resulted in far fewer matters of maladministration going to our Parliamentary Ombudsman than to any other, even in Ireland, which has a small population. Is there any hope at all that this reforming Government will make time for primary legislation so that this anomaly can be dealt with? I ask because, otherwise, I may be left in the unfortunate position of boring the House yet again with yet another Private Member’s Bill. I would rather derive some comfort from the Minister.