Freedom of Information Act

I was pleased to read the contribution by Kevin Aquilina on the need for a Freedom of Information Act for Malta (August 16).

I feel it is of interest to make the following comments:

In my role as Parliamentary Ombudsman I always firmly held the view that after the setting up of the Office of the Ombudsman, the next step to enhance the democratic process and give substance to the concept of transparency in public administration would be to enact a modern freedom of information law. I made the point eight years ago when I mentioned the need for such a law in my annual report for 1997 (paragraph 8.8, page 47).

I mentioned the subject again in my last annual report for 2004 not to leave the Office "with a bang" as another person asserted in a letter to The Times a few weeks ago. In my annual reports I do not simply give an account of performance during a particular year but, more importantly, devise and propose a strategy for the future to be followed by the Office of the Ombudsman and submit concrete proposals for improvements in public administration.

Since I have long been of the view that in our case the function of Information Commissioner should be entrusted to the Ombudsman, the office has in the past undertaken research and preliminary work on freedom of information legislation which, if required, can be made available to interested parties.

Our research led to the opinion that in our case the best model to adopt is that of the Republic of Ireland where the Ombudsman also serves as the Information Commissioner. In this country no confusion is ever known to have arisen regarding these two roles being assigned to the same person. The Ombudsman simply wears two hats - and although the Ombudsman's recommendations are not binding, at the same time decisions taken in the capacity of Information Commissioner are enforceable.

The most important points to be kept in mind in the enactment of freedom of information legislation and the establishment of an administrative set-up to do the job are:

To adopt a model which has already given satisfactory results elsewhere and introduce the necessary adaptations to meet our specific requirements. Drafting a law based on the provisions of various different models can lead to a pot-pourri as is known to have happened on other occasions with other draft bills;

To avoid creating new institutions and offices simply to provide posts for favoured persons when better and fuller use of existing facilities limits the call on resources to a minimum and is less confusing to the public; and

In the preparatory stage, to adopt the strategy followed in 1995 to set up the Office of the Ombudsman in Malta by enlisting for a relatively brief period the advice and assistance of an experienced practitioner from a successfully established foreign institution. This approach was also in evidence in the Republic of Ireland which received assistance by an Australian adviser when the Office of Information Commissioner was established in 1998 in that country.