The Ombudsman institution is 10

With the change of the holder of the office of Ombudsman coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the Maltese institution, this is an opportune moment to recall achievements, look frankly at shortcomings and consider new strategies and approaches for the future work of this office.

As an institution tasked to prevent abuse of public authority, I firmly believe that the office of the Ombudsman has achieved a great deal in its first decade. The office provides an assurance to Maltese citizens that they can have recourse to an institution which deals with their grievances about public administration in an impartial and efficient manner and that provides this service free of charge whenever they feel aggrieved by actions and omissions by public bodies.

The need for good public administration, however, is just like all other needs - no sooner have we satisfied present needs than new ones appear. Public administration methods and procedures need continuous upgrading and improvement; administrative tasks need constant streamlining and standards of efficiency further enhanced. Unless there is a constant watchful eye, negligence and inefficiencies might creep in and undermine the citizens' right to good public administration. The existence of an institution that functions as a watchdog is therefore essential.

For those who at times have to confront the stonewall of a faceless public service, it is heartening to be aware of the existence of an institution that has the integrity and the courage to stand up and be counted on issues that might seem insignificant to those in power but that are important in the daily life of individual citizens.

As I leave the office of Ombudsman with no particular unresolved problems for my successor, the experience that I gained over the past 10 years in Ombudsman matters - both locally and as a member of the international community of Ombudsmen - places me in a good position to reflect upon some issues that might affect the future direction of the institution. Without in any way wanting to sound boastful or vain, I sincerely feel that, on the whole, the office has been successful - and it is because of this very success that it requires support on an ongoing basis in the years ahead from the government and citizens alike and not to rest on its laurels.

Throughout its 10 years, the office enjoyed a strong measure of credibility in assisting citizens as well as government bodies and institutions to resolve differences whenever problems arose in the contacts that take place between them every day. The Ombudsman process has been successful in addressing the consequences of breakdowns in the relationships between citizens and their government in a reasonably efficient and cost-effective manner. As a result, access to substantive justice was achieved at less cost and in a more timely manner than by recourse to a judicial solution.

In the light of my experience I believe that the major risks to the continued existence of an effective Ombudsman institution include:

¤ The institution being taken for granted with the result that the support and respect it deserves might possibly wane and the dignity of its status undermined;

¤ Politicising the institution including the process by which officeholders are appointed or by attempting to duplicate its functional responsibilities;

¤ Failure to act upon recommendations arising from the Ombudsman's independent investigations and

¤ Failure to ensure that the institution remains fully independent of the executive government.

In our case, except for persistent failure by the government to fully recognise by deeds and not merely by words the institution's official status, the other risks have been avoided. The possibility that these risks could come true is, however, ever present and must not be overlooked.

The power and resources of the state in a modern democracy from the viewpoint of an individual citizen, particularly one who is in dispute with a government agency, are often overwhelming and the Ombudsman's presence serves to even out and to balance this relationship. All it takes for a citizen who feels aggrieved by an action or a decision made by a public authority and who fails to resolve such a grievance despite a direct approach to the institution concerned is to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. Indeed, the Ombudsman is merely a phone call away - or, better still, merely a letter away.

The Ombudsman investigates complaints that are brought to his attention and suggests remedies in cases that are found justified. Failure by public authorities to adopt recommendations issued by the Ombudsman is rare.

The level of demand by citizens is, however, not the sole measure of the need for an Ombudsman service. The fact that there is an Ombudsman with the necessary independence and powers who is able to delve into the inner reaches of government bureaucracy is a powerful stimulus so that state bureaucracy will conduct its business fairly and reasonably while at the same time putting the interest of citizens at the centre of its activities.

In evaluating the performance of an administration to undertake efficiently the business of government, it is perhaps easy to overlook positive aspects and focus merely upon errors of judgement or inadequate responses by the state bureaucracy. Bureaucratic structures are, however, manned by individuals with their strengths, weaknesses and foibles and, consequently, things can and do sometimes go wrong.

It is obvious that all administrative procedures need to be subjected to regular checks and balances to ensure the continued proper functioning of a government system that will see to the needs of a modern society. Things will frequently go wrong but what matters is that whenever this happens, any such wrongs are immediately recognised and efforts are taken in hand straightaway to put right the damage that has occurred.

In the course of investigations to establish facts, the Ombudsman can assist by identifying the way in which events under scrutiny evolved and the way in which things went wrong, if at all. If harm has occurred, then attention should be given to what could reasonably be done to undo the consequences of improper administrative conduct so that a justified complainant will be restored to the position that this person would have been in but for the wrongdoing by the public body in question.

While the risk of being named and shamed serves as a powerful stimulus to stamp out maladministration by public authorities, at the same time a strong emphasis upon failure without any reference to positive measures to correct any imbalance in the relationship between citizens and the government administrative machinery can have a dampening effect on the spirit and morale of public service providers and citizens alike. Normally, the Ombudsman's intervention provides an opportunity to focus upon an administrative misdemeanour and to put forward recommendations for redress without the need to embarrass the public authorities involved. However, occasions at times arise when the wider public interest can be better served by disclosure through a report to Parliament or even by recourse to the media when other means prove ineffective.

Throughout the 10 years the Maltese Ombudsman institution has been in existence, government departments and authorities have generally demonstrated a willingness to work with the Ombudsman for the benefit of citizens. This attitude is the key to building wider confidence in the Ombudsman institution. Citizens will not turn to the office of the Ombudsman unless the Ombudsman lends an ear to and follows up complaints and problems that are recognised to be genuine.

It is widely known that people's expectations generally run high. Suspicions and allegations of political interference that are not backed by any firm evidence in the hope that the Ombudsman's findings will confirm these accusations are at times resorted to by those who are not selected for promotion or who are excluded from social welfare payments or who lose out on government tenders. The Ombudsman is at all times firm with citizens with spurious claims and kite-flying allegations and, although this approach might disappoint complainants with dubious motives, it serves to gain the confidence of public officials who provide proper service to citizens and respect the norms of good administration.

After a lifetime forming part of the bureaucracy, over the last 10 years I had the privilege of looking at the day-to-day humdrum operations of the public service from a distance and in a detached and impartial manner. From this perch I have increasingly appreciated that citizens rightfully demand efficiency from the public service; that they expect to get individual service from public agencies; that they are entitled to be treated with respect and to have their individual circumstances taken into account and that they demand adequate and reasonable explanations to back any decisions which affect them personally or whenever things go wrong. These concerns are crucial and fundamental to citizens in a just and fair society especially when there are not enough resources to go round and tough and unpopular decisions are often called for.

Clearly there is a need to monitor regularly the operations of state bureaucracy that citizens are in daily contact with and the office of the Ombudsman is the institution that can best respond to this need.

(Legal Notice 160 of 1995 had set November 15, 1995 as the date on which the office of the Ombudsman was officially opened to receive its first complaints. Mr Sammut's second and final term as Ombudsman expired at the end of September and his office has been vacant since October 1.)

Tomorrow: Administrative And Political Developments