I followed with interest Ivan Mifsud’s Talking Point on the need to ensure that the third Parliamentary Ombudsman will be appointed at the right time by Parliament.

It is obvious that delay to appoint a new ombudsman would harm the standing of the institution.

My former colleague at the Office of the Ombudsman also refers to several attributes that an ombudsman should possess.

Although I generally share his views, I am afraid that he fails to include a basic foremost characteristic that should form the core of an ombudsman’s mission – a deep, genuine and sustained interest in people’s concerns.

This should be accompanied by a strong commitment to raise the visibility of the institution among the people at large. In particular this would make the Office accessible especially to those who, on account of their educational, cultural or social background, stutter to find a voice in their day-to-day contacts with an overpowering public administration.

I have strong doubts about the extent to which the Office of the Ombudsman responded to these demands in the last 10 years.

Finally, Parliament should not allow the appointment of an ombudsman to serve as a means of addressing any perceived inadequacies in the pension entitlement of candidates who may be considered for this office.