Editorial

What use is it to have an Ombudsman if his recommendations are not accepted? Most of the time they are accepted but, in six cases over five years, the recommendations were ignored by the government. Six cases over five years may not appear to be too many but, as the first Ombudsman rightly observed in 2005, any rejection of findings meant to remedy an injustice “harms the institution since even one sustained grievance that remains unresolved is one grievance too many”.

The point has been raised again, equally forcefully, by the current Ombudsman, Joseph Said Pullicino, both in his annual report and at the time when the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Michael Frendo, paid a courtesy call on him. With good governance, or the lack of it in some respects, rising to the top of the national agenda, the Ombudsman’s report strengthens the general plea for greater accountability at all levels of the government service. Accountability is, of course, only one aspect of good governance. Other important characteristics are transparency, effective consultation and mechanisms that fight corruption.

There has been general agreement on the setting up of the Ombudsman’s office and a Bill now before Parliament is meant to strengthen the institution even further with provisions for the appointment of commissioners for various entities. The office’s key role, as explained by the Ombudsman, is to investigate claims of maladministration in government departments and public authorities falling under its jurisdiction so as to put right instances of administrative wrongdoing and to rectify procedures, rules and regulations found by its investigative staff to have given rise to justified concerns and, ultimately, to provide an effective remedy in sustained cases.

This is clear enough. However, as it has already been remarked, it would be pointless for the Ombudsman’s office to investigate cases if the recommendations are not taken up. In his report, the Ombudsman says: “The wide acceptance of the Ombudsman’s work is, however, to some extent dampened by the refusal by some public authorities, admittedly on a very few occasions, to accept the Ombudsman’s conclusions and to implement his recommendations in sustained cases.”

While it is understandable, as he points out, that there may be instances when those in office may have their hands tied down and may even feel justified in failing to honour the recommendations made, such instances ought to be the exception.

So, what can be done to remedy the situation?

The Ombudsman is against his office being given executive powers to enforce the implementation of his recommendations but both in his report and at the time he met the Speaker he suggested that recommendations remaining unresolved ought to be brought up before a parliamentary committee, which would be able to take a political decision in the same way as the Public Administration Select Committee of the House of Commons operates.

The Speaker found the Ombudsman’s proposal interesting and promised to put it forward for consideration in the next meeting of the House Business Committee. Since both parties represented in Parliament support the office of the Ombudsman, there should be no difficulty for an agreement to be reached on this. This will set matters right and put the office of the Ombudsman on even sounder foundations. It may even encourage more people to take their complaints to the office knowing they are assured of a thorough hearing.