Over the last 15 years considerable effort was made to reform the Maltese public administration sector. Nevertheless, we still await the day when we can rightfully claim to have a modern administration in place with an outlook and a mental framework that are more relevant to the 21st century and to a country that is a member state of the European Union.

I do not believe it is so much ill will that contributes to this situation. Instead, it is mainly old traditions and continued resort to methods and work systems that have outlived their sell-by dates and that often contribute to failure by the public service to meet the expectations of citizens. Despite this situation, I continue to cling to the hope that the day will come in the not too distant future when those providing a public service will truly believe that open administration is essential so that the executive arm of government can really show respect towards citizen clients. Citizens have a right to know and to be told about what is being done in their name and it is only when clear replies and explanations are given that their confidence will be really won and maintained.

At times the strident attitude and the style and tenor of responses to the work and findings of the Ombudsman from political members of the executive indicates signs of an administration that relishes self-preservation and the retention of power to the exclusion of openness, accountability and equity as the basis on which decisions that affect citizens should be taken.

Politically-motivated appointments that are awarded merely on the back of allegiance to the party in office to persons who lack proper qualifications and experience - including political appointees on the boards of directors of public authorities and agencies - are more often than not evils that still bedevil the public sector.

In this connection and in order to reduce and, possibly, eliminate the allegations that at times surround the selection of personnel, appointments, promotions, etc. in public institutions and agencies, it might be worthwhile to consider assigning these responsibilities to the Public Service Commission as in the case of public officers who fall under the definition that appears in the Constitution of Malta.

The following signposts should provide an adequate sense of direction that will guide decisions for the future of the office of the Ombudsman:

¤ The office holder should preferably be appointed by a unanimous vote of Parliament, possibly after being identified by the House Business Committee following a call for applications as is done in a number of countries.

¤ All institutions and government bodies which are subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction should help underpin the credibility of the Ombudsman process by accepting the outcome of the Ombudsman's investigations and implementing his recommendations.

¤ MPs should take a more active interest and show a stronger commitment in ad hoc reports presented by the Ombudsman to the House of Representatives. This would assist Parliament in fulfilling its function of holding the executive arm of the government accountable for its actions and decisions.

¤ Along with improvements in the quality of public administration, the Ombudsman's function may need to shift increasingly to issues such as systemic problems that remain unaddressed and that are at times taken to reflect the general quality of service provision, continued improvement in the delivery of public services to citizens and the protection of fundamental rights in the context of the right of citizens to good public administration.

¤ There should be wider use of the Ombudsman's own motion initiative although this needs to happen with all due caution.

¤ Increased resort should henceforth be made to section 13 of the Ombudsman Act - which has never been used to date - so that it will be possible to set in train the process whereby the Ombudsman launches investigations into matters of public concern which have not otherwise been the subject of a complaint directly to the Ombudsman. In this way

1) a committee of the House of Representatives can refer to the Ombudsman for investigation any petition that is before the committee for consideration or any matter to which the petition relates and

2) the Prime Minister can refer to the Ombudsman for investigation and report any matter not subject to judicial proceeding which the Prime Minister considers should be investigated by the Ombudsman.

¤ Agencies under jurisdiction which have so far failed to set up an effective internal complaint resolution system or whose complaint handling mechanism is acknowledged to be deficient should be urged to put things right as a matter of urgency so as to serve citizens' interests better.

¤ The Official Secrets Act under which official information can only be released if approved by the government of the day should be substituted by a modern Official Information Act with the objective of promoting good governance by allowing citizens access to official information subject to the necessary safeguards; and the Ombudsman should be assigned the function of Information Commissioner.

¤ The Ombudsman institution should be entrenched in the Constitution of Malta.

During my 10 years in office, more than 12,000 individuals have approached the office of the Ombudsman for assistance. Throughout these years I have handled 7,300 written complaints, of which 76 per cent fell within the Ombudsman's mandate. Of these, over 3,500 cases were covered by a full report.

Throughout these years there was a total of over 2,000 justified complaints and an appropriate remedy put in place in accordance with the Ombudsman's recommendations for redress or else an amicable settlement was reached as a result of the Ombudsman's intervention. Almost an equal number of people were assisted without a formal investigation.

At the same time, it was only in six cases involving 14 individuals where, although complainants were considered to have raised a justified lament, the recommendations of the Ombudsman continued to remain unheeded by the public bodies involved. Even so, following critical comments by the Ombudsman, changes in policy and in the law were eventually effected so as to avoid a recurrence of similar grievances.

Also worthy of mention are the own initiative investigations which I carried out during these years and which ranged from hospitalised mental patients to women prisoners, irregular immigrants, abuse of planning regulations, tax assessments on income received in arrears and in respect of separated couples and the state of public gardens in Valletta. I am pleased to note that to a large extent such own motion reports raised public awareness on these issues and action was taken to correct the administrative shortcomings that were identified by the reports.

I consider the period in which I served as Ombudsman as the most rewarding 10 years in over 50 years in which I have served the Maltese public to the best of my ability both within and outside the public service.

I am encouraged by the growing willingness of Maltese citizens to question and to challenge the decisions of those who hold positions of authority until they are satisfied that these actions were taken in good faith and in accordance with the basic principles of good governance and the citizen's right to good administration.

The Ombudsman's office claims with pride that it has made a significant contribution to the emergence of this new culture among Maltese citizens.

(Concluded)