Editorial

The stand-off between the Maltese Environment and Planning Authority and its audit officer over the choice of an investigating officer has already caused enough damage. A lifeline thrown by the Ombudsman a few days ago, which could have made a significant contribution towards avoiding such impasses, secured the government's approval but was rejected by the Leader of the Opposition.

Once again, as happened when the Prime Minister offered the opportunity to the opposition for both sides of the House to work together to beef up the Permanent Commission Against Corruption, the opposition, for its own reasons, prefers not to play ball.

The dispute between Mepa and its audit officer has now reached a point of no return. The point now should be to seek a solution that goes beyond whether the outgoing investigating officer should be retained or not.

Talk must be on a method of investigation - including name/s of candidate/s - that is acceptable to both Mepa and its audit officer. Perhaps the outgoing investigating officer could be invited to offer his advice too. An offer of mediation would not be amiss, even at this late stage.

Mediation is precisely what the Ombudsman tried to do when he recommended to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition that the administration of the Mepa audit office - as well as other similar offices dealing with citizens' rights - should be "serviced" by his office.

It ought to be pointed out that it was the Mepa board itself that had invited the Ombudsman to help untangle the situation.

In accepting the proposal, the government has urged the Ombudsman to implement the transfer of responsibility of the Mepa audit officer and the University's Ombudsman as soon as possible.

Opposition Leader Alfred Sant disagrees that Mepa's audit office and other similar "complaints handling offices" should share their administrative set-up with the Ombudsman's. While deeming the Ombudsman's proposal as a practical compromise so that Mepa's audit office can continue to operate, Dr Sant said he very much doubted whether, once relations between Mepa and the audit office had reached such a "miserable state", the audit officer could work unhindered.

That is somewhat of a defeatist attitude. One should at least attempt to address a situation rather than simply shoot it down. There are, of course, still unanswered questions as to whether the new arrangements would work effectively and efficiently or whether it is a case of "hard cases making bad law". However, the answers to these questions rather depend on how the new arrangements are implemented in practice and what will be the formal relationship between the Ombudsman and the Mepa audit officer and the University Ombudsman.

If the new arrangements are restricted solely to the narrow administrative support of the investigating bodies concerned considerable economies of scale and the more cost-effective use of public resources should accrue. The investigating bodies will also be able to approve the selection of their own staff free from interference by the bodies they are meant to scrutinise. This will be a positive step forward.

On the other hand, there must be a concern, which the Ombudsman will be anxious to allay, that by having these investigating bodies under his own wing, his own objectivity, autonomy and judgement may be undermined or, at least, compromised.

The independence, reputation and integrity of the Ombudsman must be preserved at all costs.