Constitutional amendmentsgiven unanimous second reading

Parliament yesterday unanimously gave a second reading to a Bill to entrench the Office of the Ombudsman in the Constitution. The Bill also raises the retirement age of magistrates and the Attorney General to 65.

The amendments need the support of two-thirds of the House in third reading to become law.

In his winding up, Justice Minister Tonio Borg said in reaction to comments by the opposition that the Ombudsman would not be able to investigate the decisions of other constitutional bodies, such as the Employment Commission, the Broadcasting Authority or the Auditor General.

He would, however, be able to investigate cases involving the administration of those bodies, such as, for example, alleged discrimination in recruitment.

Similarly, the Ombudsman would not be able to look into criminal investigations conducted by the police, but he could investigate the administration of the police force. If necessary, the Bill would be further clarified in the committee stage to remove any doubts.

Dr Borg stressed that this Bill had not been moved earlier because the government had awaited a reaction to a draft given to the Opposition three years ago. But no reaction had been forthcoming, despite the Opposition's oft-repeated calls for consultation on such matters.

Dr Borg said the Ombudsman should not enjoy executive powers because that would make him a super prime minister, a super minister and super Public Service Commission. The role of the Ombudsman was to monitor the public administration and make recommendations when an injustice, which was not necessarily any illegality, was committed.

When a recommendation was not taken up, the sanction was not legal, but political, as the Ombudsman could make the case and his recommendations public.

In this sense, it was worth noting that very few of the Ombudsman's recommendations were not taken up, by both Nationalist and Labour governments. There had been cases where he did not agree with the Ombudsman's decisions but he followed the recommendations anyway. Still, there were circumstances where the government, or the Public Service Commission, felt strongly that a recommendation should not be implemented. That did not mean there was no confidence in the Ombudsman.

Dr Borg said the retirement age of magistrates was being raised to put the magistrates on a par with judges. The amendment had become even more important in view of the recent raising of the retirement age for all workers to 65. Therefore, unless the retirement age of magistrates was raised, they would end up without a pension for several years.

A comment had been made during the debate that the retirement age of judges should be raised to 70. He was not excluding anything but preferred to see how matters developed, Dr Borg said.

Earlier, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo called for autonomy for Parliament from the civil service.

He said it was ironic that Parliament was legislating to entrench one of its offices in the Constitution while the House itself did not enjoy autonomy. Calls for autonomy for Parliament had been made by different Speakers, notably in June 7 commemorations, but no headway had been made on this front, Mr Bartolo said.

Mr Bartolo underlined the people's confidence in the Office of the Ombudsman but said this level of public confidence was not enjoyed by other public offices.

The moral authority of an institution did not depend on its legal status but the way it went about its activities. The Office of the Ombudsman had established procedures whereby the people had confidence that their cases were being considered and tackled.

It was important, however, that all cases were investigated in detail, and the Office needed the resources to be able to do so. One could not have a situation where an investigation consisted only of having complaints copied to the persons or institutions concerned, for their reaction. Unfortunately, people sometimes felt that a version of events given by a department was given more weight than that of the person moving the complaint.

The Office of the Ombudsman, therefore, should be given all the resources and space it needed to perform its duties as it thought fit.

Earlier, Mario Galea (PN) resuming his speech from the last sitting, said the setting up of the Office of the Ombudsman meant the Nationalist government had given the people an important right. The Ombudsman was serving to keep those involved in public administration on their toes. It was a positive thing that the Ombudsman had the authority to launch his own investigations and it would be healthy if the Office could itself launch more investigations, if it had the time, given its heavy workload.

He augured that all government departments would have good relations with the Ombudsman, who should not be seen as an inspector but an instrument to ensure that any mistakes were rectified.

Mr Galea referred to the liaison committee between the House and the Ombudsman and said this committee needed to be given new life so that MPs could be better informed of the Ombudsman's activities, and any possible difficulties, and the Ombudsman could better make his views known.

Labour MP Silvio Parnis thanked all those who served as Ombudsmen and said it was a shame that few people knew about the existence of this office. The Ombudsman, he said, helped people to achieve justice in cases of maladministration.

There were cases regarding promotions and cases which involved local councils, among others. Many people were suffering injustices as regards social benefits.

Giving examples of injustices suffered by people who turned to him for assistance, Mr Parnis said a man who was injured was not getting any social benefit because his wife worked part time earning Lm190 a month from which the family had to pay a loan. Another example was of elderly persons who were treated in an undignified manner and were left in the corridors at St Luke's because of lack of space.

Nationalist MP Joe Falzon said the people were making good use of the Office of the Ombudsman and this proved that the office had acquired confidence. This was healthy for democracy.

Mr Falzon said it would have been more positive had this office functioned at times when democracy and public administration were going through difficult times. It was a courageous act for a government to create an institution which could be critical of its actions, but this only reflected the present government's belief in transparency.

Labour MP Michael Farrugia insisted that recommendations made by the Ombudsman needed to be heeded by all government agencies, departments and other bodies.

The Public Service Commission, for example, continued to stick to its decisions, creating a double injustice.

Dr Farrugia insisted that when a complainant's case was upheld by the Ombudsman, redress should be prompt. It was unfair how, for example, some local councils insisted on not giving compensation in spite of the Ombudsman's recommendations.

It was important that while this Bill was given support, certain shortcomings were recognised. When there were decisions by the European Court which the EU did not agree with, the latter still changed its legislation to align it with the findings of the court.

The government should, in the same way, respect the Ombudsman's decisions.