A sexual exploitation complainant, whose case was at the centre of a legal row between the Charity Commission and the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman (PHSO), has called on the regulator’s chief executive David Holdsworth to resign after the publication of a critical House of Commons Committee of Privileges report.

This had found the regulator was in contempt of parliament for taking legal action intended to quash the laying of critical PHSO reports into its handling of Laura Hall’s case, and a separate case involving another complainant, Damian Murray.

MPs also asked Holdsworth to apologise to parliament over his ‘patently untrue’ evidence that the regulator did not intend to block their publication.

The Commission has accepted the Committee’s findings and that Holdsworth and the board will apologise.

The regulator has also commissioned an independent review of its decision making around the two cases, led by judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom.

But Hall wants further action, including Holdsworth’s resignation and for the Commission’s board to “seriously consider their positions”.

Following the Committee’s view that Holdsworth’s evidence to MPs was untrue she said: “No chief executive or Parliamentary reporting officer can credibly lead a regulator after that. He should resign.”

She also wants to see previous Commission leaders involved in decisions around her case and the legal row with the PSHO who have been handed honours to return their awards.

This includes former chief executive Dame Helen Stephenson and former chair Orlando Fraser CBE.

They should be “referred to the Honours Forfeiture Committee” and “be barred from future public appointments”, said Hall, who along with Murray has waived her right to anonymity.

‘Blundering’

When Holdsworth gave his evidence to the Committee of Privileges the regulator was accused by MPs of not appearing “at all fit for purpose”.

The Committee also accused the regulator of “blundering” into the row with the PHSO.

Hall added: “I am delighted with the Privileges Committee’s report. It confirms in the clearest terms that the Charity Commission was in contempt of Parliament.

“The Committee found a deliberate attempt to conceal from MPs vital reports about the Charity Commission’s safeguarding failures and treatment of victims of serious sexual abuse.”

She is also concerned that more than £70,000 of public money was spent on the legal action by the Commission, which had been “fighting tooth and nail to prevent evidence of their failures from receiving appropriate scrutiny”.

“These funds should have been spent protecting vulnerable people like myself, Mr Murray, and many others from abuse.

“The report makes it clear that the Charity Commission is not fit for purpose and has lost the confidence of Parliament and the public that funds it.”

Commission’s board apologises

In a letter to Committee of Privileges chair Alberto Costa MP, the Commission’s chair Julia Unwin confirmed that she has written to the House of Commons speaker “to offer an unreserved apology” on behalf of the board and to formally apologise to the Committee.

“While the action resulted from genuinely held concerns, we should not have persisted in challenging this matter through the courts,” Unwin states.

“We understand the significance of your committee’s findings, and I am determined we will learn from this episode.

“The Commission places deep importance on its relationship with Parliament, as a non-ministerial department with direct accountability to both Houses.

“That this episode has damaged that relationship is a source of great regret to the entire Commission Board and Executive.”

---