‘Bill reflects Ombudsman’s own proposals’

Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said that the Ombudsman Bill reflected not only the agreement between government and opposition in the Select Committee but also many of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman in 2009.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Bill amending the Ombudsman Act, Dr de Marco spoke at length on the Planning and Development Commissioner to be established under the Bill. He praised Mepa audit officer architect Joe Falzon for doing sterling work and for being a person of absolute integrity.

Dr de Marco said that the proposal in the Bill did not mean that the government did not respect the Mepa audit officer’s duties or that it lacked appreciation of his work.

In order to strengthen the autonomy, transparency and independence of the officer investigating this same authority, it was important that this function be exercised by an official who was independent and autonomous of the authority.

Since 2007 the cooperation between the Mepa Audit Office and the Ombudsman’s Office had been strengthened and increased considerably.

Parliamentary Secretary de Marco said the recently-approved Mepa Reform Act also aimed at strengthening the accountability of the authority’s operations. He himself had proposed a Planning Ombudsman who would form part of the Ombudsman’s Office.

Many proposals made by the Ombudsman were reflected in the Bill, including a commissioner responsible for planning and the environment and also the setting up of an internal audit office within Mepa. The commissioner was to operate autonomously in his investigations, getting all administrative and technical support needed.

Dr de Marco said that the Bill established how the Planning Commissioner would be appointed. This also reflected the agreement between the government and the opposition. The commissioner’s report on any case would be given not only to the Ombudsman but also to the complainant. Complaints on planning and the environment would be received by the commissioner and not by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman would intervene only in cases where he considered that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice.

The commissioner also enjoyed immunity from any disciplinary, administrative or civil action while carrying his duties.

Dr de Marco said the Mepa Reform Act had taken due care of the transitory provisions and set up the internal audit office operating on similar lines as those adopted in other government departments.

Concluding, Dr de Marco said he hoped that there would be convergence on how to improve planning and the environment.

Leo Brincat (PL) said that the government had decided to ignore the Ombudsman’s recommendations several times, thus ridiculing Parliament and undermining the office of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman had criticised ARMS Ltd, saying that practically all public administration regulations where breached when it dealt with citizens. Mr Brincat said that the Ombudsman made it clear that this should never have happened. Though ARMS Ltd might seem to be a private company, its directors were the Enemalta’s CEO and the Water Services Corporation’s CEO while the chairman was an official in Minister Austin Gatt’s secretariat.

While the Ombudsman fulfilled his duties, regulators should have done the same, Mr Brincat said. The Ombudsman said that, though there were many articles in newspapers, few people asked for his advice, either because they thought he did not have jurisdiction on the sector or that he could not offer proper remedies.

Mr Brincat said that Nationalist governments did not have a good record with the Ombudsman. Dr Gonzi continued with what his predecessor had done: attacking the Ombudsman.

Former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami had stated that then Ombudsman Joe Sammut offered trust to render the institution of the ombudsman a success. He had also said that the Ombudsman was gaining more impartiality in the way he investigated. Yet, he took a completely different direction in 2002 when the ombudsman had indicated that there was lack of governmental transparency.

Dr Fenech Adami had criticised the Ombudsman, saying Mr Sammut thought he was above the law. Such attacks put undue pressure on, and undermined, the Ombudsman.

Mr Brincat augured that the resources which were denied to the Mepa auditor would become available to the Planning Commissioner. If the change from auditor to commissioner was not done effectively, then it would have been a futile exercise. If Mepa listened to the auditor, it would have been in a much better position. He augured the Office of the Ombudsman be given the effective tools to be able to work efficiently.

Gino Cauchi (PL) said that there was a big difference from the content of the Bill before the House and how citizens were being treated when dealing by government agencies. The opposition had agreed fully with strengthening the Ombudsman’s office even further. But this was not reflected in the Bill and he was afraid that the changes were merely cosmetic.

The Ombudsman’s importance could be seen when people suffered injustices due to nepotism, adopted on a daily basis by the government departments. Meritocracy was still not a policy frequently used by them, and thus people needed to ask the Ombudsman for redress.

On paper the Ombudsman seemed to be given more investigative powers. But in reality nothing was done for the strengthening of such office when it came to implementation of final decisions.

There were even cases where the Ombudsman had been ridiculed in the past even by prime ministers. This was so different from the treatment other European Ombudsmen faced in their own country.

Citizens were of the impression that Parliament was an important institution. But what happened on Monday in the PAC such respect had decreased drastically. The government wanted to hear only those witnesses which benefited it and was ignoring previous rules adopted in the same committee.

Mr Cauchi said the government was letting lose important agencies such as ARMS Ltd, which lately had enacted various anti-social policies without the government actually restraining any of them. He also referred to long waiting lists at Mater Dei Hospital and at the incoherencies suffered by Mepa applicants.

He claimed that the department which offered least cooperation with the Ombudsman was the Lands Department. Members of the Armed Forces were also suffering injustices. The government and its agencies were not taking heed of the Ombudsman’s various recommendations and this was leading to a dangerous situation. He felt that the Bill had to lay more emphasis on the implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Mr Cauchi said that more contact had to be established between the Ombudsman and the House committees.

Concluding, he augured that the government implemented the Ombudsman’s recommendations to increase the citizens’ high regard of this office.

Noel Farrugia (PL) said that the government’s administrative control had lost all sense of balance. Any past vestige of balance between the micro and macro economy, including the middle class, was constantly falling back.

So many injustices had occurred in the management of the economy that what had used to be good for most people was now the realm of a few. The government needed to ensure that whatever it did to support investigations into its own operations did not go counter to its practices.

Mr Farrugia said he had asked Parliamentary Secretary de Marco how and why the White Rocks development brief had not changed in more than a decade and then a project had been allowed that went counter to that same brief. Did it mean that corruption was becoming a tax on Malta’s 120,000 households? Or did it mean that the government’s economic policies had become shipwrecked?

The government obviously had no control over the authorities it had set up itself. Nobody was above the law, which should be there to respect human dignity. Were there people who no longer recognised what they themselves had legislated on?

Several Maltese values were going downhill.

Mr Farrugia said he was in favour of expanding the Ombudsman’s power. He was also convinced that the government was trying to make things better, but its efforts lacked conscience, as proved by what was happening all around. Did it not mean anything that the few continued to become richer while the vast majority suffered hardships?

Referring to Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat’s proposal for a living wage, he said it was the only way to help families make ends meet. Too many circumstances were contributing to make things worse for those same families.

For the Ombudsman to be able to do things well, the administration must be more on track. If shortcomings were not even mentioned in the House, how could one explain one’s complaints to the Ombudsman?

The debate continues.