Opposition complains of exhorbitant architects' fees

Opposition Justice spokesman José Herrera yesterday complained of what he called the "exhorbitant rates" being paid to court-appointed architects doing valuations.

Speaking during the debate on the Various Laws (Civil Matters) Amendment Bill, Dr Herrera said for a three-hour valuation job, architects were charging between Lm3,000 and Lm4,000. It did not make sense that for one's assets to be valued, one had to pay such excessive fees. This was not to say that professionals should not be paid, but the matter had to be seen to urgently.

On the other hand, lawyers had the Chamber of Advocates which issued an informal list of tariffs they should charge, and the government issued an official tariff list. There had to be a sense of proportion, he said. A lawyer can't charge a measly Lm 300 for a case which lasts years on end, while an architect gets about Lm4,000 for a valuation.

Dr Herrera said that injustices were committed under the Legal Aid system. Under the old system the Magistrate used to appoint as a lawyer indicated by the accused. The lawyer was paid through a voucher system, which led to abuse because the same rate was paid whatever the court case may be.

The new system engaged Legal Aid lawyers nominated by the Court also as Court Curators. When Malta entered the Schengen Agreement, 90 per cent of cases against foreigners regarded people living in EU countries. Lawyers' income from curatorial cases decreased by 90 per cent.

The lawyers giving legal aid had only 20 per cent of cases - a large decrease on the number of legal aid cases in the past. These lawyers were often underpaid. As a result there were some legal aid lawyers who failed to appear before the courts.

People who could make use of legal aid had to be either destitute or living on social benefits. A civil court case today cost 10 times more than in the past.

Dr Herrera said persons living on minimum wage could not exercise their rights because they did not have enough income to open a court case because they had to pay Lm350 as a start.

Legal aid should be open to all lawyers with clients choosing the lawyer they trusted. Tariffs should be decreased, giving the right to client the lawyer of their own choice.

Earlier, Dr Herrera said the principle of parliamentary democracy in Malta stipulated the separation of powers between the state, the executive and the judiciary. This meant that there were areas in the judiciary which were within the competence of the executive, and this could not be changed.

The Maltese system, he said, was fundamentally different from the one in the UK and Wales, which was being changed to that of the US.

The role of the Chief Justice in Malta was to preside over the highest court of Malta, but he did not have any executive powers.

This was because the judiciary were meant to be scrutinising the workings of the government. Confusion between the state and the judiciary would result in justice not being done. Dr Herrera said he did not agree with the direction Malta was taking, towards vesting the Chief Justice with disproportionate executive powers.

In the past, he said, there were cases when the Justice Minister might have interfered in the judiciary, by shifting judges who decided a case against the government to another court. Therefore it was a good thing that the method of assigning work had changed.

The judiciary was there to deliberate on and conclude cases, but not to take care of the administration of the courts. How cases were assigned had to remain the competence of the executive and Parliament. Any form of interference was wrong, Dr Herrera said.

The government did not give seniority much importance, and although it was true that this should not be automatic, one could not discard it completely. This problem had to be addressed, he said, as some judiciary members were frustrated at being overlooked.

Appointing a judge in Malta was a political issue, meaning that it had national impact and importance. Dr Herrera said if any mistakes were made in the process, the minister had to take responsibility for this. The minister should listen to recommendations of the Chief Justice, as he should be given the authority and respect he deserved. Perhaps it was advisable to appoint a board of experts, he said.

Dr Herrera remained in possession.