Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino. Photo: Jason Borg

A proposal to widen the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to include private companies offering essential services would give consumers the protection they lost when these firms were privatised.

As things stand today, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that refer to the government and other public entities.

But in line with a Europe-wide discussion on the matter, the Ombudsman is proposing an extension of his jurisdiction to cover services offered by private entities that “still encompass a strong public service obligation”.

Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino has argued that placing these private entities under the scrutiny of an independent overseer would ensure the consumer is “well provided” with services the legislator considers to be essential for society.

However, he made it clear that the jurisdiction would be limited to the provision of the service itself and the Ombudsman would not interfere with the management and internal affairs of the commercial entity.

The proposal is one of many found in a report penned by Dr Said Pullicino entitled On Strengthening of the Ombudsman Institution.

The report, laid in Parliament this week, was the Ombudsman’s reply to a request by Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech for submissions by the office on how the institution could be strengthened.

Dr Said Pullicino said that extending the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to cover private entities could be done by a simple amendment to the law identifying the essential services.

In other proposals, the Ombudsman said his recommendations should remain “non-binding”.

This flies in the face of what has often been argued, that the Ombudsman’s recommendations should be enforceable so that no government could ignore them.

However, Dr Said Pullicino insisted that making recommendations enforceable would “essentially convert the office to a court of law”. The inherent quality of persuasion rather than coercion should not change, he argued.

A longer term would avoid the risk of undue influence and afford the office holder adequate time to execute his vision

Dr Said Pullicino said the Ombudsman’s current five-year term, with a possible extension for another five years, could be transformed into a single longer term of seven or nine years.

“This would avoid the risk of undue influence and afford the office holder adequate time to execute his vision and policies,” he said.

He also called for the appointment of more commissioners in the Ombudsman’s office. The law was changed four years ago to create two commissioners with specific remits that reported directly to the Ombudsman: the health commissioner and the planning and environment commissioner.

But Dr Said Pullicino has suggested the creation of other such appointments to deal with persons deprived of liberty, which include the prison, local councils and consumers’ rights.

He also proposed a study to determine whether existing authorities such as the Children’s Commissioner, the National Commission for Persons with Disability and the Commissioner for Mental Health could merge with the Ombudsman.

Although the Ombudsman’s office, which is answerable to Parliament, enjoys constitutional protection – the Ombudsman is appointed and removed with a two-thirds majority – Dr Said Pullicino called for greater protection since the Ombudsman Act was an ordinary law that could be changed by a simple majority.

Consideration should be given to the possibility of the president assuming “an active, mediatory role” in the appointment of the Ombudsman, he added.

If the Prime Minister and Opposition leader fail to agree on a person who could command the required two-thirds majority, Dr Said Pullicino proposed that the president be empowered “in his own deliberate judgement” to submit to Parliament for its consideration a list of three names, who could fill the post.

This could also apply to other constitutional posts.

He also insisted that the fundamental right to good administration should be enshrined in the Constitution.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com