The Office of the Ombudsman is independent of the government and is an officer of Parliament. More importantly, the Ombudsman is the citizen’s defender. He is there to strengthen the accountability of the public service and to give citizens a voice in countering maladministration in government ministries, departments, local councils and certain public agencies and authorities.

Malta has been well served by its Ombudsmen and the office has grown both in scope and size. Today, it has under its wing three commissioners – for health, the environment and education – apart from fulfilling its traditional role as “a complaint mechanism of the last resort when all other remedial measures... have already been exhausted”.

In his annual report to Parliament, the Ombudsman sets out the main features of his work. Ombudsman Anthony Mifsud has just presented his report for 2015 to the Speaker of the House. This highlights that the number of investigations completed last year saw an increase but so also did the number of cases pending resolution. The increase could be attributed to a number of factors, including outreach initiatives but the fact that the government has come to the mid-point of its electoral tenure may well account for more aggrieved individuals seeking redress and was therefore not unexpected.

The raw statistics give an interesting insight. Of 611 cases, 405 were investigated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, 76 by the Health Commissioner, 65 by the Environment Commissioner and 65 by the Education Commissioner.

The largest number of complaints for the second year running were made against the Water Services Corporation and ARMS Ltd with 32 complaints, while Transport Malta received 24 complaints. These figures are unsurprising and confirm one’s daily impressions of the two organisations and their need for root and branch improvement. More surprisingly, for the first time ever, the Public Service Commission featured in the top five public entities, perhaps mirroring the public’s concerns about government failure to deliver on its (hollow) promise of meritocracy in the public service. Hard on the heels of the Department of Social Security with 21 complaints, the Office of the Prime Minister placed fifth with 20 complaints, a most worrying increase of 150 per cent over the year before.

These are difficult times for the public service and the statistics provide an inkling into what may be the causes. There is a feeling that political interference into what should normally be a straightforward process of objective administration based on proper due process is regularly being compromised. Lack of transparency, accountability and proper public scrutiny are affecting good public administration.

The key objectives of the Ombudsman’s Office are to investigate and form an impartial opinion on complaints of maladministration in the public service, to promote fairness of administrative action and to develop a stronger relationship between government departments and public institutions and the public at large. His report for 2015 exposes those areas where the administration of government requires considerable improvement. It is very much to be hoped that the Ombudsman’s annual report will be properly debated in Parliament and that the deficiencies it exposes in public administration will be energetically followed up.

The House of Representatives has a duty to involve itself in tackling the maladministration brought to its notice by its own independent watchdog.