The Ombudsman is the people's champion. He is there to see that injustices are addressed by investigating individuals' complaints against public authorities.
However, the Ombudsman can only recommend - he cannot enforce. This has led to authorities ignoring his recommendations, which rather defeats the whole purpose of his remit.
This is not the first time that he has called on parliamentarians to take action on his reports. "I hope Parliament will discuss this report rather than ignore it, as it has done with other previous reports left pending", he told reporters on Tuesday.
When, a year ago, he gave vent to his frustrations and rebuked politicians in an interview saying that "Parliament is not doing its job in keeping the administration under scrutiny", he was subjected to a barrage of criticism and personal verbal attack instead of praise for his stand to ensure that justified complaints were acted on.
His outburst was also due to his futile pleas to the House Business Committee, to which he reports, that "they (MPs) are not fulfilling their duties".
But despite all that hullaballoo, things have not changed. A suggestion by the Ombudsman that each political party have at least one member responsible to take action on reports which are left 'hanging' has still not been taken up.
The latest Ombudsman's report, to hit my desk, which has been left 'hanging' concerns the "responsibility of public authorities for the upkeep and maintenance of roads".
We all know what a disaster our roads are in and it is not the first time that people have been injured and even killed (Sonny Monte comes to mind) because of hazards on the road.
Now the Ombudsman appreciates that it is impossible to attend to all the roads immediately; "Government has plans to implement an extensive road upgrading and rehabilitation programme but that will entail a considerable amount of financial resources and will need to phased over a number of years," he said.
However, he has recommended that "In the meantime... urgent attention be given to an intensive and co-ordinated first aid road maintenance and repair programme to remove dangerous traffic traps and other hazards in main, secondary and other roads in almost all towns and villages throught the Maltese Islands".
Maltese drivers who pay substantial amounts to the authorities - driving licence, road tax and vehicle registration fees are entitled to drive in hazard-free roads, the Ombudsman said.
Just as important, he states that the authorities concerned should "accept both moral and legal responsibility for traffic accidents caused by such hazards".
And this is the crunch. The authorities are refusing to take that moral and legal responsibility. I am sick of writing the same lines over and over again (a repetition of my school days' penance for rebelling) but whenever we have accidents, regardless of whether they cost lives and serious injury, no one takes responsibility.
It is the same with the Ombudsman's reports in that they are laid on the Table of the House but no one there takes responsibility for them.
No wonder the Ombudsman and his staff get frustrated. They do an excellent job sifting through and investigating complaints and compiling detailed, specific reports to ensure citizens get justice, yet no one in Parliament, which is after all ultimately responsible to see to it that the Ombudsman reports are followed through, takes action.
"If the culture of accountability is to gain further ground in the country, it is expected that all those who hold positions of authority should assume full responsibility for their actions as well as their omissions. The story that emerges from this report is a case in point", says the report.
The "story" regards a wide, deep (about nine feet) culvert on a secondary road in Siggiewi. The road was dark, the hazard unlit, with no warning sign indicating the hazard. Not only was the site totally unguarded by some kind of protective barrier, there wasn't even a kerb.
I am going to digress here. How many times have you seen pedestrians risk life and limb walking in a fast traffic road with no pavement? It is not just to drivers that roads pose a serious hazard. At least drivers have a car as a sort of shield, but pedestrians are sitting ducks.
Back to the "story". During the night of December 1, 2001, Reinhard Azzopardi (I did not get his name from the Ombudsman's office. They do not release names of their complainants) was driving with a friend in his Land Rover on the road leading from Siggiewi to Id-Dar tal-Providenza.
He took a turn into a secondary road and the Land Rover ended up on its side at the bottom of the nine-foot pit. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the vehicle sustained extensive damage valued at Lm1,230.
The Siggiewi police patrolling the area were on the scene of the accident, but no report was filed because there were no injuries and the driver was only covered for third party insurance and he could not make a claim.
But, quite rightly, Mr Azzopardi felt that the Siggiewi council were responsible for the damage to his vehicle. He wrote to the council in January 2002 claiming compensation.
By May 27 of that year the council had not even deigned to send a reply. He therefore took his case to the Ombudsman.
To cut a long story short, the council were doing their best not to be held accountable and despite a request by the Ombudsman asking the council to respond to the complainant's letter, the Ombudsman received a letter from the council's legal adviser rejecting liability.
Staff at the Ombudsman's office discovered that the culvert had been in that state for a long time and that this was not the first time that a similar accident had happened in the area. The council's executive secretary admitted on a site visit with the Ombudsman that the site was "dangerous" and undertook to take remedial action by building a low protective wall.
However, the council still "disclaimed responsibility for the accident". In November 2002 the Ombudsman sent the result of his findings to the council.
He concluded that the local council could not divest itself of responsibility by ensuring that the danger be removed or minimised. It was recommended that the council should pay compensation for damages sustained.
The council through its lawyer disagreed with the Ombudsman that the complaint was justified and refused to pay the compensation recommended.
The council's legal adviser argued that it was not within the Ombudsman's remit to determine damages and recommend compensation, since this was "a purely legal point of view".
But it seems that the council's legal adviser is not au courant with the Ombudsman's mandate. According to section 22 of Act XXI of 1995, it is the Ombudsman's function to investigate whether an administrative act or omission appears to have been contrary to law and make recommendations as he thinks fit.
There is no doubt that failure to maintain a road safe from hazards is an adminstrative shortcoming clearly within the Ombudsman's remit. Besides, it is the Ombudsman institution's raison d'être to avoid litigation in court whenever possible, the report said.
It quoted Section 1033 of the Civil Code (Cap. 16): "Any person who, with or without intent to injure, voluntarily or through negligence, imprudence or want of attention, is guilty of any act or omission constituting a breach of the duty imposed by law, shall be liable for any damage resulting therefrom".
Leaving the culvert open and unprotected in a public area without adequate lighting or any other means of protection and warning consituted a breach of duty on the part of the council which is also liable for the resulting damages to the owner of the vehicle concluded the report.
Legal sophistry is often used by the authorities to evade administrative responsibilty and this is a classic example. It is unacceptable that public bodies camouflage their inefficiency with legal equivocation and refuse to accept liability for their inaction. This mentality is wrong, said the report.
Let us hope that at least one member of parliament has the courage to ensure action is taken on the issue.
Health and Safety
I found it a little bit odd that on Friday week I received an invitation from the Occupational Health and Safety Authority to their Good Practice Awards ceremony.
Actually, it was not the invitation I found strange, but rather that I had been nominated for the OHS Personality of the Year Award in recognition "of your commitment towards occupational health and safety in Malta". And I will tell you why.
In this same issue the Authority's director, writing to the editor, says that although my "initiative and concern over occupational health and safety is commendable" I am "a little misguided in the approach".
In that case surely there must be some mistake in my nomination.
My criticism that legislation in the area is vague and that it is the Authority's job to get any vagueness clarified and made specific is not addressed in yet more mystifying verbiage.
Dr Gauci says that, with regard to the statements I quoted from the Chamber of Engineers, "a code of practice for the building and Construction Industry in Malta was issued in 1997 and still holds true today".
In a report by George Cini in The Times on October 1, the Chamber of Engineers called for "more accurate and focused legislation on the use of tower and mobile cranes". Alexander Tranter, its president, said that there is still no certification requirement for persons operating cranes.
Although cranes now have to be certified by a competent person, "the certification process is not yet defined so it can be skewed by the subjective orientation of the engineer drawing it up", Mr Tranter said.
Although the OHSA looks after this certification, there is nothing that regulates how cranes are used. There is no law requiring certification about how a crane should be correctly mounted and unmounted, and the machinery directive of the Malta Standards Authority which ensures that cranes conform to EU standards has only recently been introduced, Mr Tranter said.
"Legislation in place today dealing with cranes is outdated", he added.
It seems I was not "a little misguided" after all.
School transport
The Malta Transport Authority gets a pat on the back for withdrawing the licence of the school transport driver involved in a serious accident on Friday.
One of the schoolgirls he was driving home fell out of the back of the van and was hit by a following school van. One wonders whether the stipulated regulation space between vehicles was being observed and at what speed both vehicles were travelling. And whether the door was checked before the driver set off.
All this will no doubt be checked by the inquiring magistrate and the inquiry set up by the Education Ministry.
I always get shivers down my spine when I see children in those vans.
It is so obvious that the drivers have not had to undergo any kind of instruction on how to behave when transporting schoolchildren. I bet none of them carry a first aid kit and none of the drivers have first aid knowledge.
When I first got back to Malta I was thankful that I had not returned when my son was still at school.
I do not think I would have trusted them and would probably have ended up doing the school run rather than rely on a driver who drove too fast, badly and dropped off kids on busy street corners and near the middle of busy roads.
It is good news that someone is taking responsibility and taking action. Let us hope this is not a flash in the pan but a new dawn for accountability.