Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro Preca has urged the government to take up the suggestion put forward by the Ombudsman to set up a Parliamentary committee to investigate cases it failed to implement the redress advocated. Government Whip David Agius later countered that there were only six cases during the last five years where the government did not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
Both Dr Coleiro Preca and Mr Agius were among the last speakers in the 10-and-a-half-hour debate in second reading of the Ombudsman Act (Amendment) Bill which sets to streamline the procedure adopted by specialised Commissioners for Administrative Investigations in the handling of complaints. The Bill was unanimously approved.
At the start of Wednesday’s sitting, Carmelo Abela (PL) said the Bill had great significance as it aimed to bring conformity between commissioners who would be investigating specialized areas. It was important that access to information related to investigations would be available to these commissioners, who would be officials of Parliament.
He said the government was introducing this Bill to protect itself with regards to the Mepa auditor who had uncovered a number planning and the environmental irregularities.
Mr Abela said there was still a long way to go with regards to injustices and discrimination, even those of a political nature. These did not all find their way to the Ombudsman’s office mainly because many individuals felt that the Ombudsman would not be able to help them in their particular situation.
Furthermore, the government did not always follow the Ombudsman’s recommendations. He suggested greater collaboration between Parliament and the office of the Ombudsman.
The current issue regarding the PAC showed that the government was not comfortable with investigations and was afraid of scrutiny. It was contradictory that the PAC was being prevented from doing its work at the same time that the government was discussing how it could strengthen the office of the Ombudsman.
Mr Abela suggested that the commissioners and their functions be chosen through a parliamentary committee. He agreed with the Ombudsman’s suggestion to create an administrative public committee.
One also had to analyse the role of the University Ombudsman who was now going to be replaced by the Commissioner for Education. It was also important that Parliament examined closely the Ombudsman’s report.
Concluding, Mr Abela said that he hoped this Bill lead to a decrease in the number of complaints the Ombudsman received.
Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (PL) said that one would have expected the Bill not only to introduce Commissioners for Administrative Investigations within the Office of the Ombudsman but also to strengthen the integrity system of Malta.
The Ombudsman was only one institution within the essential components of the national integrity of the Maltese system. The Ombudsman should have been given more powers and resources to be more proactive.
Dr Coleiro Preca said that the government should have tackled situations within government departments where citizens could not seek redress, in spite of a number of tribunals.
The government was not convinced with the Bill; it had proposed it for convenience. The government should have proposed a much stronger Bill.
Dr Coleiro Preca said that people had to pay for administrative faults. She mentioned the case of a family, whose late father relied on social benefits, and were asked to refund social benefits since it was found that he was not entitled to.
When the government ignored the Ombudsman, it harmed the institution. The Ombudsman had declared that even one unresolved dispute was one too many.
Dr Coleiro Preca said that the government should have tackled these important issues, which related to the fundamental freedoms of the individual. Yet, it seemed that the government did not want to consider such issue.
When former Ombudsman Joe Sammut criticised the way promotions were handed in the Army, future promotions were given in the same way, this creating further injustices.
Concluding, Dr Coleiro Preca said that one should have considered the present Ombudsman’s proposal to set up a Par-liamentary Committee to in-vestigate cases that had been resolved by the Ombudsman but his recommendation were not implemented by the authorities.
Nationalist MP David Agius said the government’s intention was to continue to strengthen the Ombudsman and Auditor General’s office as well as the Public Accounts Committee. The government was determined to strengthen democracy and he called on MPs to speak in a way to foster trust in these entities.
He took the opposition to task for requesting that the PAC probe what the Auditor General had already investigated over an 11-month period. Did the opposition trust the Auditor General or not? he asked.
The Ombudsman worked for more justice in the country. There were only six cases during the last five years where the government did not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
He said that under the Bill, other special commissioners could be appointed, like one for health, if there was any need of investigation. Mr Agius emphasised that the Ombudsman Office and the PAC were set up by PN governments.
Mr Joe Falzon (PN) said that in setting up the Office of the Ombudsman, the government put trust in this and other institutions. The people were grateful for this policy and action. The government also set up parliamentary committees because it had full trust in Parliament and wanted it to function better.
The Bill provided for the appointment of commissioners for different sectors. He said that after investing heavily in the health sector, it was unfair that certain complaints on the sector were being made for political mileage. He said that a Commissioner for Health would be another investment in human resources.