The House of Representatives yesterday agreed on the creation of a unified government agency for the Office of the Attorney General, replacing a law approved in 2002 which created two agencies - for the Attorney General and the Prosecutor General.

As in the 2002 law, the new bill provides that the Attorney General shall be the chief legal adviser to the government and shall have the judicial representation of the government in judicial acts and actions.

However, whereas the 2002 law said that the Attorney General (AG) shall exercise his powers to institute, undertake or discontinue criminal proceedings "through the Prosecutor General who shall be the chief prosecuting officer," the new bill says that it will be the Attorney General who will be the chief prosecuting officer.

The 2002 legislation had itself been the subject of major change. The government's original proposal in 2001 had been for the Prosecutor General to be separate from the AG and enjoy equal status and protection in terms of the constitution. That proposal had met strong resistance and a constitutional amendment which had been required was withdrawn so that the law as eventually approved provided that the prosecutor general would have acted under the general direction of the AG. The law, although approved, was never implemented.

As in the 2002 legislation, the new bill lays down that the officers of the Attorney General, when acting under the direction of the AG in anything in which the AG is to act on his own individual judgement, shall have the same protection at law as the AG.

The bill provides that the Office of the Attorney General shall be designated a government agency and the AG may also act through contractors he may appoint. The agency will be a body corporate which will enter into an agency performance agreement with the government, where its funding and tasks will be addressed. The justice minister may give directions to the agency, except for areas where the AG is, by law, required to act according to his individual judgement.

At the opening of the debate, Justice Minister Tonio Borg said the Office of the Attorney General needed to be reformed because the huge workload it faced could not be handled by the current structure. The Office, with just 14 lawyers and three legal procurators, had to handle all government court cases, draft legislation, assist the government in overseas talks and integrate EU law into Maltese law. Last year, it was responsible for 1,565 pages of primary legislation, 375 legal notices, 30 new constitutional cases, 28 new appeals, 1,600 process verbal and a range of criminal cases including 500 cases involving drugs.

The AG's office needed to become the best legal office, and therefore its structure needed to be changed so that it could attract the best people to work for it full time or for particular cases.

It now appeared that the opposition agreed on the setting up of the AG's agency. The two sides had held consultations following the debate on the 2002 bill and both had given some ground. The opposition had objected to having two agencies and the government eventually agreed to have just one - after all, then Justice Minister Austin Gatt when moving the first bill had said having two agencies was no dogma.

The opposition had also objected to having a management board to run the Attorney General's Agency. Although the new bill did mention this board, it would be removed through an amendment.

Concluding, Dr Borg said the agreement which had now been reached on this bill should be a model followed in the future. He augured that more talks would be held with the Opposition on various constitutional aspects, such as raising the retirement age of Magistrates, the Attorney General and other officials, to 65.

Opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia said this was the third time this bill, with some changes, was being moved. Common sense had prevailed at last and consultation had replaced imposition. Dr Borg had approached the opposition and both sides had sought common ground. The Opposition would therefore vote in favour of this bill, more so as it would not touch the constitution.

The Opposition had been strongly against the first bill, piloted by Dr Gatt, because it raised constitutional problems. The setting up of two agencies for criminal and civil cases would not have been practical and would have tripped up everyone.

The Opposition agreed with Dr Borg that the AG's office should be the best legal office in Malta.

Dr Farrugia said he wanted to salute Dr Anthony Borg Barthet who was leaving the AG's office to become a judge of the EU Court of Justice. He also wanted to congratulate Dr Silvio Camilleri, the new AG, who was a very dedicated and able person.

Dr Farrugia said the farming out of some work of the AG's office should not be seen as a bad reflection on the AG's staff. Farming out should not be the rule, but the exception in certain cases, such as cases abroad which required particular specialisation or back-up, as had been the case in the past during the median line dispute. And he hoped that it would not be only "blue-eyed" lawyers who would be tasked with work by the AG's Office. Indeed the opposition had confidence in Dr Silvio Camilleri.

The AG's office should retain the independence guaranteed to it by the constitution, even when work was farmed out. And the AG's office, even in cases of farming out, should keep its distance from the Bench.

There was also need for lawyers employed by government departments and authorities to take the decisions expected of them, not "pass the buck" to the AG's office.

He said the reform of the office was long overdue - not just for the administrative structure but also the actual offices, which left much to be desired.

Turning to other aspects of the work of the Attorney General, Dr Farrugia referred to drug-taking and said that in minor drug sharing cases (as against drug trafficking), one should consider if a prison sentence was justified when a youngster took drugs only once. Such a mistake should not be allowed to ruin a person's life and the AG should ensure that the police did not abuse the law.

Dr Josè Herrera (MLP) underlined the importance of the separation of powers and spoke on the importance of the post of the AG over the years.

Dr Herrera congratulated Dr Borg Barthet for his appointment to the Court of Justice of the European Communities as well as Ena Cremona, who had become the first Maltese woman judge and would serve on the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. He also congratulated Dr Camilleri. He was surprised, Dr Herrera said, how the media had not given importance to these appointments.

Interjecting, Parliamentary Secretary Carm Mifsud Bonnici referred to Dr Herrera's reference to the media and said Dr Camilleri would formally take up his appointment on Monday.

Continuing, Dr Herrera said the original government proposals would have split the role of the AG and created confusion. The appointment of the Prosecutor General would have affected the composition of the Council for the Administration of Justice, putting the members of the judiciary in a minority and raising problems on separation of powers.

Although he would vote in favour of this revised bill, he still had some reservations on the creation of an agency and farming out of the AG's work, although he agreed on the need for reforms.

He did not know if the senior members of staff would like the removal of rankings such as assistant Attorney General.

The current level of salaries at the AG's office did not serve to attract as many good people as one would want and he had been among those who had called for them to be raised, Dr Herrera said. Lawyers in the AG's office had also lost prestige, and the situation was so dire that they were now even unionised. Should they go on strike, the country's administration would grind to a halt. The government had argued that reforms could not be made while the AG's office was tied by the Estacode. That was ridiculous. If needs be, the Estacode should have been amended.

Now the government was going round the problem by opening the way for contractors to make up for the lack of personnel at the AG's office. He shared Dr Farrugia's concerns over nepotism. There was shameful corruption in the way some contracts were awarded in the past to legal offices. One contract alone had cost the government more than the former legal aid system. There should be transparency and seriousness in the way contracts were awarded by the AG's Office. The choices should be made solely by the Attorney General, with the government not being involved.

Winding up, Dr Carm Mifsud Bonnici said the agreement reached on this bill showed the government had been wise to move a fresh bill without bringing the 2002 law into force. All agreed on the need to reform the AG's office, including introducing a new salaries structure to encourage more people to work there. All agreed on the setting up of an agency and the farming out of certain work. This bill was the tool for the AG's office to be brought up to date, more so as Maltese lawyers had to be prepared for EU-related work.

The office would not lose any of its powers in terms of the law.

The office of the AG had a central role not only in court matters and the drafting of legislation, but even in the economic sector.

Contractors working for the AG's office would be selected on their merit and the choice would be in the hands of the AG because they would be answerable to him. The Opposition, therefore, should not raise needless alarm.

It would have been a mistake for the government to change the Estacode, because that would have had implications throughout the civil service. That was why an agency was being set up instead.

The action the government was taking reflected its respect for the lawyers currently serving in the AG's office and the need to recruit more.

Drastic decisions needed to be taken for the administration of justice to be modernised. He hoped the House would be able to discuss this further later this year, because it was unacceptable that 46 per cent of court cases had been pending for over five years, an increase from the past few years.

The bill was then given a second reading.