Labour MP José Herrera said yesterday that while the opposition would vote in favour of the bill to create the Malta Mediation Centre, he feared this centre would be another white elephant.

Dr Herrera said the opposition would be voting in favour of the bill because it supported alternative ways of dispute resolution.

Nonetheless, he felt that the format that the government had proposed was far too formal and too few people would opt to seek mediation.

The Malta Mediation Centre, therefore, would be a waste of money, a waste of space and a waste of time.

Rather than setting up the centre, what the government should have done was to empower the courts, initially the superior courts, to refer to mediation those cases which, it was felt, could be resolved in this way. There should be a list of mediators who could be appointed to provide such services, but the parties should be able to select a mediator of their own choice.

Dr Herrera also complained that far too many institutions for the administration of justice were being formed alongside the courts. Tribunals were meeting in towns and villages and those, along with the mediation and arbitration centres and the family court housed in a separate court building, meant that lawyers practically had to wear gym shoes to make it on time to the hearings they were required to attend.

It was nonsense and not helpful for the administration of justice to have these institutions all over the place rather than concentrated in the law courts building.

Moreover, the people should have the right to have their own lawyer to represent them in mediation and not unknown mediators. Mediators who only underwent six months of training and who were not lawyers were definitely not qualified enough to replace lawyers.

Dr Herrera noted that any adjudicatory body, could, in terms of the law, refer a case for mediation. What did this mean, given the fact that there were so many such bodies in Malta?

Mediation, he said, should be introduced slowly and expanded gradually, depending on its success.

Gavin Gulia, opposition spokesman for home affairs, said no one could be against mediation as an alternative way of conflict resolution. This was why the opposition would vote for the bill, even if it had certain shortcomings.

Over the past 15 years, various Nationalist governments had introduced amendments aimed at improving the administration of justice, but notwithstanding the situation was far from what anyone desired.

Former Justice Minister Joe Fenech had amended the code of procedure so that administration of justice could be hastened. This included the introduction of the Master. Dr Fenech had promised that within three months he would have had the system working smoothly, but not only had he not succeeded, but the changes had drawn complaints everywhere, including from the Chamber of Advocates.

Since 2003, legislative amendments, rather than being aimed at strengthening the courts, had actually aimed at undoing them. As a result, various tribunals and centres had been formed to take over work done by the courts, including the Small Claims Tribunal and the local tribunals.

When the government claimed that cases before the First Hall had been reduced by 18 per cent, it did not take into account how many cases were shifted to the inferior courts.

Dr Gulia said he was sceptical of various aspects of the bill, not least clause 17, where it was laid down that mediation may even be ordered by decree by an adjudicatory body.

That mediation could be ordered, rather than resorted to voluntarily, was a cause for concern. Only recently, the government had admitted the failure of the Malta Arbitration Centre, formed five years ago, when it legislated that arbitration could be compulsory.

Referring to remarks by Nationalist MP Mario de Marco, Dr Gulia argued that when mediation was voluntary, the question of interruption of prescription should not arise. But it was a different matter when a case passed to the mediation centre through a court order. Once a court referred a case to mediation, the parties had no way of knowing when the case would come to an end.

The only circumstance when the end was within the parties' jurisdiction, was only when they came to an agreement. Therefore, when mediation was imposed by the courts, the prescription period should be extended.

Dr Gulia observed that when mediation was resorted to voluntarily, either of the parties should have the option of opt out again, particularly when proceedings were seen as taking too long, or they were being abused. The bill did not make provision for this.

When mediation was requested by a court and a time span was allocated for the purpose, the mediator should have the right to extend that period when it was justified for the process to succeed.

Concluding, Dr Gulia insisted that mediators should be appointed on the basis of their professional competence and not political affiliation, as had happened all too often, such as in the Arbitration Centre.

This was not acceptable.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.