The Bill for the setting up of a mediation centre has been welcomed by MPs as an alternative way of conflict resolution, but Opposition MPs have insisted that details of the Bill will have to be amended.

Parliamentary Secretary Edwin Vassallo welcomed the Bill, viewing it as a new, fast and relatively inexpensive dispute resolution alternative for small businesses.

The government, he said, was courageous enough to be moving innovative proposals which should be given a chance to work.

The government was trying to reduce bureaucracy and the backlog at the law courts so that the people could have easier access to justice. Surely the opposition could not be against this? Many other countries had mediation centres. Why not Malta?

When an opposition returned to government it always reaped what it sowed and the opposition was currently sowing skepticism.

Inefficiency and delays in court procedures all meant that justice was not done.

Mr Vassallo also referred to other tribunals, saying it was unfair that traders who, after all were also consumers, could not take other businessmen before the consumer affairs tribunal when there was a dispute over something bought for a commercial purpose.

This Bill, he said, was welcome because it would simplify procedures for conflict resolution when both parties were committed to reaching a solution. It was important now that mediation services were promoted. Mediation should be a service that was sought by every sector.

Labour MP Joseph Sammut said that although he was not against the principle of mediation he was not pleased with how the concept was being pushed and enforced, even if in a subtle way.

Mediation, he said, was a method which should be used by every lawyer before court proceedings were started.

But the Bill being debated was not aimed at giving the legal profession any new tools.

It had always been the practice that before legal proceedings started lawyers first held discussions with their clients.

The possibility of mediation was already there and it was not the first time that the court was asked not to proceed because there was the possibility of a settlement out of court. It was when there was a lack of agreement or an unforeseen problem that one ended up in court. So mediation already existed.What was being proposed was therefore a waste of time and space.

The way things were developing led one to think that the Bill was part of a pattern only intended to get rid of the courts, with a wide range of cases now not longer being decided by the courts.

This government had raised the competence of magistrates, it had created the Malta Arbitration Centre and the Small Claims Tribunal, among others. It had also introduced higher court fees, the aim being to reduce the caseload. But unfortunately the results were detrimental to the people since it had become more difficult to go to court.

Dr Sammut pointed out that mediation could not only be resorted to voluntarily but could be ordered by a court. Yet the arbiter was to be chosen by the chairman. This was against every norm, when the chairman and the board were to be appointed for a four-year term. This would always make them servile to the minister of the day.

Was the mediation centre to be impartial and independent or directed by the minister?

The judiciary, Dr Sammut said, was being attacked in the most blatant manner and new courts were being created instead.

Mediation already existed in the Family Court, he said, but there had been no noticable improvement. Indeed, proceedings had been lengthened, not least because mediation was even required when the parties reached an amicable settlement. What sense did this make?

Concluding, Dr Sammut said mediation should be introduced within the university law course. Indeed the course needed an overhaul. He felt lecturers should be full time, and one should do away with lecturers who were such only to boost their CV. Students, particularly law students, should be trained in mediation so that they could use this method in cases which came before them. Mediation, clearly, should be voluntary and not imposed.

Labour MP Joe Brincat pointed out that the word "adjudicatory" used in the Bill, was not English but American. The laws of Malta, he said, should be written in English and Maltese.

He said that while the opposition agreed in principle and would be voting in favour of the Bill on second reading, it would insist on amendments in the committee stage.

As proposed, the mediation centre would increase expenses for the country and the people and it would not be effective.