The Ombudsman, Joseph Said Pullicino, was invited by the Deputy Prime Minister to review the tasks of his office and to make proposals for strengthening it. As a result, he recently submitted a comprehensive report making 11 recommendations for improvement.

The key objectives of the Ombudsman’s office are to investigate complaints of maladministration in the public service, to promote fairness of administrative action and to encourage a stronger relationship between all public institutions and the public at large.

Malta has been well served by its ombudsmen (two in 18 years) and the office has grown both in scope and in size over the period. Today, it has under its wing three commissioners — for health, the environment and education — as well as fulfilling its traditional role as “a complaint mechanism of the last resort when all other remedial measures... have already been exhausted”.

One of the key recommendations in the Ombudsman’s recent report is for further broadening the office’s span of responsibility. It is suggested that his remit should be extended to other areas such as local councils, consumer rights and persons who have been deprived of their liberty.

Additionally, already existing “ombudsman-like institutions” (of which there are a number) should also form part of the Ombudsman’s office, ensuring common standards are adopted without losing their autonomy. The report also proposes possible other areas where the Ombudsman could provide specialisation, such as financial services, animal protection and journalistic ethics – though these would clearly need discussion.

Another eye-catching recommendation is that the right to a good public administration should be enshrined in the Constitution, implying that the State continues to be liable for its actions and that a citizen has the right to seek redress for damages suffered at the hands of the State. Coupled with this is the sensible recommendation for the constitutional status of the Ombudsman to be strengthened to bring it into line with the term of office, funding and conditions of service of the Auditor General.

The report makes a host of positive proposals for wider use to be made of the Ombudsman institution by the Prime Minister and the Committees of the House in carrying out independent investigations, drawing on its position of neutrality, independence of the government and the high level of public trust it enjoys.

Investigations could also be extended to alleged violations of human rights in order to reduce the number of such cases coming to court.

The report is an imaginative and carefully considered document. In administrative, organisational and functional terms it is unobjectionable. The doubt, as always, lies in its political execution.

A recurring feature of the Ombudsman’s annual reports has been his perennial complaint that, although his office was a parliamentary institution, the House of Representatives did not involve itself as it should. Many of his reports were not being acted upon.

Successive administrations have shown a knack for setting up structures – the Ombudsman, the Auditor General and the Commission Against Corruption are good examples – and then failing to provide them with the tools or the teeth adequately to fulfil their roles. Worse, Parliament often fails to follow up on their recommendations.

This is a poor reflection both of Malta’s democratic deficit and of successive governments’ unwillingness to tackle maladministration or misuse of public funds brought to its notice by Parliament’s own independent watchdogs.

Will this administration and this Parliament tackle it with any greater resolution?