Ombudsman has undermined his own success - Gonzi

Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi said yesterday that the Ombudsman, Mr Joe Sammut, undermined the success of his own institution in comments he gave in a newspaper interview on Sepember 1.

Mr Sammut had given the impression that the government ignored the ombudsman, when the opposite was the case, the minister told parliament.

In seven years the ombudsman had decided 2,053 cases and upheld 1,001 of them. Only six of his recommendations were not implemented by the government. So how could the ombudsman say he was ignored? Indeed, the ombudsman had lost a golden opportunity to show that his office was actually being very effective.

Among the six recommendations which the government could not implement was one regarding national insurance. Implementing that recommendation would have cost the exchequer millions of liri, Dr Gonzi said. This matter had been debated at length with the ombudsman, so he was not ignored on that either.

It was also not true that parliament was ignoring the ombudsman. The ombudsman was heard at least once a year by the House Business Committee and could request even more meetings. What more could the house offer within its limited circumstances?

Dr Gonzi said the government had had a right to reply to the ombudsman's remarks in the way it did, given the adjectives which had been used in the interview.

Reacting to opposition claims that the Speaker should have spoken on this case, Dr Gonzi said the ombudsman was accountable to the House as a whole, and had the Speaker spoken out, he would have been making the same mistake as the ombudsman had done.

This, Dr Gonzi said, was a time for reflection. The ombudsman was answerable and accountable to the House and he should use the machinery of the House, not the newspapers.

The ombudsman had a right and a duty to examine and comment on administrative decisions which were seen as not being fair, but he could not substitute the courts or other institutions, such as the attorney general.

Furthermore, the ombudsman was subject to the law, and he could not make recommendations which could lead to a violation of the laws.

And the ombudsman had to observe confidentiality and follow the code of ethics of the Association of Ombudsmen, such as not mentioning names from cases before him. In the interview names had been mentioned. Even people which had nothing to do with his cases were mentioned. Was that ethical?

He felt, Dr Gonzi said, that the ombudsman had made a mistake in his interview. He hoped that everybody, but particularly the ombudsman, had since learnt his lesson.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.