House committee to seek advice on Ombudsman funding

The parliamentary House Business Committee yesterday discussed the Ombudsman's business plan but failed to approve it pending advice over whether the Ombudsman could be allocated more funds than approved in the national budget.

The Ombudsman, Mr Joe Sammut, is requesting a financial allocation of Lm175,000 but the financial estimates for this year, approved by parliament at the end of last year, provide an allocation of Lm170,000.

Mr Sammut said that one reason he wanted the allocation to rise to Lm175,000 was to hold a survey on the way the Office of the Ombudsman was viewed by the public so that it could continue to be improved.

Leader of the House Lawrence Gonzi said parliament had already decided to allocate the Ombudsman Lm170,000 and in terms of the constitution, this sum could neither be increased nor reduced.

Mr Sammut also told the committee that while the budget had allocated Lm170,000 for his office, he had now been informed by the Finance Ministry through a circular that available funds only amounted to Lm155,000. This, he said, was unacceptable, coming from the finance ministry, and he would only accept it if it came from parliament.

Dr Gonzi said the finance ministry exercise was across all government departments and not addressed only at the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman should do his utmost to operate within those limits and refer to parliament if he had problems.

Notary Charles Mangion (MLP) said that the finance ministry's requirement for all government departments to reduce their spending by 10 per cent was not being observed.

Mr Sammut said it was a mistake to have the Office of the Ombudsman subject to the scrutiny of the finance ministry. The office was answerable to parliament only. One should not introduce systems which could lead to the institution losing its independence.

He also observed that last year he had requested, and been granted, Lm170,000 when the budget allocation was of Lm166,000.

The committee decided that it would seek advice before deciding on this point.

Earlier in the meeting, Mr Sammut repeated his call for the institution of the Ombudsman to be entrenched in the constitution.

He observed that in 10 of the 15 EU member states and six of the 10 acceding states, the Ombudsman was entrenched in the constitution.

Reviewing the past year, Mr Sammut said his office received 1,025 complaints for investigation. A total of 719 cases were concluded, including 374 which had required a full investigation and a report. The average time for a case to be closed was 53 working days and by the end of the year there were only 20 cases which had been pending for longer than six months.

He said that of the Lm170,000 given to his office last year, Lm165,404 were spent. The savings were mainly on personal emoluments because the IT coordinator of the office was no longer required as the contractor of the new computer system was bound by a maintenance agreement for a year.

Dr Mangion asked whether the Ombudsman had carried out investigations on his own initiative.

Mr Sammut said three such investigations were held, one on the treatment of illegal immigrants, another on taxation charged on pension arrears and the third on the AFM.

Dr Mangion asked what progress had been made about the cases regarding promotions in the AFM.

Mr Sammut said there were 102 cases stemming from promotions in 2001. Thirty-two cases were upheld and four were still pending. Redress was given in all the cases which were upheld.

Speaking on the total number of cases he had considered, Mr Sammut said redress had not been given in 15 cases he had upheld. Nine involved the Inland Revenue Department where investigations were continuing by the department to establish whether the injustices were due to administrative mistakes.

Dr Mangion asked what had become of the Ombudsman's recommendation that interest should be given when complainants were found to be due refunds from the government.

Mr Sammut said this principle was accepted abroad but still new to Malta. There were instances where this principle had been accepted in Malta, with reluctance.