Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc. between Ombudsmen) Order 2007

My Lords, I shall respond to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The answer to his first question is yes, we did take that approach. The Government have been clear from the outset that the order is not a suitable vehicle for the removal of the MP filter. I know that we are 30 years on, but the noble Lord will recognise that the original Act that introduced the ombudsman was the subject of pretty vigorous parliamentary debate. Much persuasion had to occur before MPs supported it; they did so against a background of anxiety that there was another point of reference, apart from the elected Member, for the redress of a grievance. Democratic theory and widespread historical practice made the crucial question of the responsibility of the Member and the redress of grievance through Parliament fundamental to their role, and it always will remain so. An issue of principle always was at stake. He will recognise that a substantial body of opinion in another place still has anxieties on this score. The noble Lord has made conspicuous efforts to shift parliamentary opinion on this matter, and we applaud him for that. The fact that I am able to answer yes to his first question indicates a shift in perspective. He will recognise that this involves such a fundamental shift in concept that primary legislation is required; this is a rather ineffectual instrument to carry out such a reform. If the noble Lord introduced another of his Bills, he would, far from boring us, delight and entertain us. Perhaps we can look forward to this issue being considered in the other place—that is crucial to its success—more constructively than has been the case previously. He will also know, so far as the Government are concerned, how precious legislative time is. I cannot give him a programme. I do not think that the noble Lord was fair when he referred to an anomaly. More accurately, this involves a restriction—he also used that term. One might call it an anomaly if one maintains that the change in thought is now so widespread that the 1975 Act is completely out of date. There is still a balance of argument on that front. He will be aware that it will be generated in the other place. He should not presume the position so strongly as to define it as an anomaly. I am not sure that he advances his case by reducing its significance—““belittling it”” is not the right phrase—in that way.