In the House of Representa-tives on Monday, MLP spokesman for Tourism Evarist Bartolo said it is ironic that, while the office of Ombudsman falls under parliament, the Ombudsman enjoys greater leeway and autonomy than parliament itself. The latter institution, he said, suffers from “arrested growth”; it may look old, but it has not matured much. Every Sette Giugno, speakers plead for greater independence, but parliament still looks like a government department, to the point that citizens cannot differentiate between parliament and government, between the legislative and executive institutions.

Mr Bartolo was speaking during the first debate after the Easter recess, which again centred on the Constitutional entrenchments of the office of Ombudsman and of the increased retirement age for magistrates and the Attorney General.

There are voices, said Mr Bartolo, that question whether the Ombudsman has sufficient resources to investigate each and every case to the fullest extent. Others feel that when complaints are directed against government, the Ombudsman gives more weight to the version of events given by the establishment. However, Mr Bartolo said that he himself had referred people to the institution, which he holds in high esteem, and they had been met by sympathetic officials who were ready to investigate their complaint.

Case notes are a valuable resource which are not being used. Mr Bartolo said that the recommendations made by the Ombudsman should be studied, so that bad administration may be weeded out across the board. Public institutions should form committees that meet regularly, possibly with the Ombudsman, to discuss case notes and compare them with their administrative processes.

PN whip Mario Galea was of the same opinion, saying that recommendations made by the Ombudsman ought to set precedents, and act as guidelines for future performance. On the other hand, if a citizen files a complaint that transpires to be false, then the Ombudsman’s report should also serve as a certificate of good practice by the department concerned.

Mr Galea quoted the Ombudsman, saying that government is stronger, and has more resources than its citizens, and so has a duty to govern under the rule of law and has to guarantee treatment that is fair and transparent. The office of Ombudsman is one of the greatest rights that this government has afforded its citizens. Mr Galea said that the Spanish title for the equivalent office translates as “defender of the people”, which he regards as an appropriate description.

Opposition health spokesman Michael Farrugia said that constitutional entrenchment is a good thing, but the government has to listen to the Ombudsman because there are far too many institutions, such as local councils, the public service commission and government itself, that ignore the recommendations made when they see fit. Decisions issued by the office should be honoured in the same way that court judgments are honoured.

However, the office of the Ombudsman should show that it is a beacon of probity, and the Ombudsman and his subordinates should be reputable people who are shown to be completely independent.

Dr Farrugia said that the government ought to listen not just to the Ombudsman but also to the opposition’s remarks and criticism, because institutions and processes that are at fault need to be straightened out.

Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said heaven forbid that the Ombudsman should have executive powers. If he did, he would decide everything by himself.

But, said Dr Borg, the Ombudsman must breathe down the government’s neck, naming and shaming when recommendations are not followed, with political sanctions constituting the limit within which the Ombudsman must operate.

The government may, however, still go against recommendations if such a stance is justified.

As to whether the Ombudsman can investigate other constitutional bodies, Dr Borg said that the office may query administrative processes, but not interfere with the powers directly granted by the Constitution. Thus, while the Ombudsman can investigate claims that the police may have abused their powers, or neglected their duties, he cannot interfere with police investigations. Nor can he, for example, overturn judgements delivered by the Broadcasting Authority.