Parliament to debate the ombudsman

The government and the opposition yesterday agreed that a debate would be held in the House of Representatives on the controversy involving the ombudsman, Joe Sammut. The debate is to be held on Monday.

Opposition leader Alfred Sant initially requested an immediate debate when parliament met yesterday morning, saying the house needed to debate what he described as the government's "savage" reaction to remarks made by the ombudsman in a newspaper interview. He said the government's attack did not just constitute criticism, but was a personal attack aimed at intimidating the ombudsman morally and politically.

Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami said he would welcome the debate, although there was no need for parliament's agenda to be put off. Parliament had full confidence in the institution of the ombudsman, he said, but the remarks the ombudsman had made were unacceptable and contemptuous of the house.

The ombudsman had been "very unfair" in his comments about the government's reaction to his various recommendations and as prime minister he had defended the dignity of the government and would continue to do so.

At the beginning of the sitting, Dr Sant said he was requesting the adjournment of the business of the house for an urgent debate on the government's attack on the ombudsman, which was a matter of urgency and public importance.

The government's attack did not just constitute criticism, but was a personal attack aimed at intimidating the ombudsman morally and politically. To make matters worse, the ombudsman, who was an official of parliament, had found no protection from the chair, whose duty it was to protect parliament's officials.

The attack made on the ombudsman was also viewed as a signal of what could happen to other officers of parliament, such as the clerk and the auditor-general.

Dr Sant said the matter also needed to be debated because it had been said that the house remained indifferent to matters raised by the ombudsman. The house needed to show this was not the case.

Formally moving his motion, Dr Sant said that in view of the "strong, unjustified and intimidatory" accusations made by the government against the ombudsman following his complaints over how his office was being treated by the administration, and since in a modern democracy, such "arrogant government action" amounted to moral and political violence on a national institution set up to defend the people from the power of the state, this constituted a threat to democracy.

Dr Sant observed that the ombudsman's remarks, to which the government had reacted so forcefully, involved preferences in promotions in the armed forces, discrimination in the way no compensation was given to Tarcisio Mifsud, when compared to Richard Cachia Caruana, the lack of proper controls on spending by government agencies and the way the house was not adequately considering the ombudsman's reports.

All these were important matters which could not be ignored, and he was therefore requesting an immediate debate so that the house could show its solidarity with the ombudsman and parliament's other officers.

Replying, Dr Fenech Adami said this was not an urgent matter and the agenda did not need to be put off. However, he was ready to agree a date with the opposition when the house could debate the interview given by the ombudsman.

This was a serious matter. Parliament had full confidence in the institution of the ombudsman and it had renewed Joseph Sammut's appointment to that post.

He had no doubt that Mr Sammut was doing useful work, but the interview was out of place and included words which were unacceptable and contemptuous of the house.

The ombudsman had also been "very unfair" in his comments about the government's reaction to his various recommendations and he would therefore "with pleasure" welcome an opportunity for the house to debate the interview, even that morning if need be.

Dr Sant said his motion was not about the interview, which could still be debated, but about the government's reaction to it. That reaction had been intimidatory and needed to be debated urgently.

Dr Fenech Adami said it was obvious that when he was speaking about a debate on the interview, such a debate would also take in the government's reaction. Both sides were agreeing that the house should debate the interview and the government's reaction to it.

There was a need for maturity. The ombudsman's remarks were in the context of the actions of the house. There was clearly need for the house to understand the duties of the ombudsman.

Whenever the ombudsman felt that his recommendations were not being taken up, he had, as a last resort, to submit a report to parliament. As far as he knew, the ombudsman had so far submitted 10 reports on matters not taken up by the government and he was ready to discuss every one of them.

To date his impression had been that the opposition had agreed with the government's line on all those cases and it had not therefore requested a debate about them.

It was the ombudsman's duty to criticise the government where he felt the administration had not acted well. His criticism of the ombudsman, Dr Fenech Adami said, was that he had made remarks which were not appropriate in the circumstances.

Once, instead of referring to parliament, the ombudsman had chosen to go to the press and make remarks of that nature, he felt the house should examine the declarations made by the ombudsman in the interview, the government's reaction, the cases reported to the house by the ombudsman and why the government had decided not to take up the recommendations made.

He resented the fact that the ombudsman had made a public declaration that the government's decision not to take up some of his recommendations were "unbelievable and insulting". The ombudsman should not make such declarations. This was the issue and not the institution itself.

The ombudsman had handled some 5,000 complaints and the government had acted in the case of the vast majority of them.

He therefore welcomed the opportunity for this matter to be debated.

Dr Sant said the issue was not only the matters raised by the ombudsman but the government's reaction. How could the government prohibit the ombudsman from saying the word "unbelievable?"

The chair too should act on such matters since the institution of the ombudsman was being attacked.

Could the government not be attacked by an independent institution? Under what law could the ombudsman be attacked in such a savage manner because he had used the word "unbelievable?"

The point at issue was that according to the government, the ombudsman could not express himself in a certain way. The opposition was ready to take up the government's offer for a debate, but that did not take away the urgency of the need to debate the inquisitorial government attack on the ombudsman.

Dr Fenech Adami said he would not go into the merits of the case, but the basis of the office of the ombudsman was fairness, and it was not fair that the ombudsman had said that the government's decision not to take up some of his recommendations had been unbelievable and insulting.

The government was an important institution too and it had its own dignity which he was duty bound to protect. The government's actions were infinitely better than the actions of its predecessors.

Dr Sant said the prime minister's remarks reminded him of Shelley's poem on the "king of kings."

Before the House resumed its normal business, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi, after consultations with Dr George Vella (MLP) said the debate would start on Monday but the House Business Committee would decide on Wednesday how many sittings would be allocated for it.

Dr Vella said this did not mean that the debate was not urgent, but Dr Sant would be abroad in the coming days.

The sitting then continued with the usual business of the house.