Opposition home affairs spokesman Michael Falzon yesterday described the prisons at Corradino as "licensed drug-dealing quarters". He said this was a shame especially since this was supposed to be a correctional facility.

Speaking during the budget debate, Dr Falzon cited the case of a prison inmate who, at the law courts, took out a packet of drugs, showed it to the magistrate and alleged he had bought it that very morning in jail for €20.

Dr Falzon said there was an acute shortage of prison guards. There were 40-inmate divisions manned by two, and sometimes even one, guard. The budget does not address this shortage.

He said the appointment of Mr Emmanuel Cassar to head a board of inquiry to investigate abuses in prison was a 'tragic farce', considering that the allegations pertain to the period when Mr Cassar was prison director. He asked whether the inquiry was a screen to shield a prison guard, who was given a transfer because of alleged abuses.

Earlier, Dr Falzon said members of the civil protection department were not adequately compensated.

He asked what had become of the national emergency plan, which was financed by the Italian protocol. The Tetra radio communication system, costing €1million was not deployed.

It was unacceptable that unqualified personnel, employed by a contractor, were doing firemen duty at the airport. Security was being compromised.

The opposition will be foursquare behind the government in any action it might take to mitigate illegal immigration. But Malta needed to make a bigger effort to, legally and humanely, tackle the problem. It needed to take measures to reduce the number of arrivals and increase the number of repatriations. Repatriation agreements needed to be reached with the North African countries from where the immigrants left, especially with Libya.

He said Frontex, the EU border control agency, needed to be given more resources and made more effective.

Malta could not shoulder a heavier burden of illegal migration. It had to act like other countries in the EU in the best interests of the country and its people without being inhuman.

The opposition recognised that the country had to observe European and international obligations as well as moral ones but a united front had to be presented for Europeans to understand Malta's unique and particular situation.

It was in this spirit that the opposition had asked the government not to sign the EU treaty on illegal migration. Although this treaty could have been a step forward, it could have also been the right moment for Malta to get a stronger voice and achieve more.

Dr Falzon said that the government was not treating the police corps, fairly. Nothing was said in the budget about the proposed police academy at Ta' Kandja. Only a new block has been constructed and this was going to serve for illegal immigrants.

There was lack of training for some of the members of the corps, especially those who were in direct contact with the public.

Members of the corps have still not been paid for extra duties performed during the general elections and the transport strike. There was a lack of equipment, police cars were still not air conditioned, the public incident system was not accessible in 19 places and the corps does not have an exhibits office.

There were various disagreements between members of the different ranks which spilled over to lower ranks. There were even cases when officials tried to arrest one other in front of their subordinates.

When it came to promotions, there was no succession planning.

The force was demoralised and there was a sense of apathy. This reflected itself in the number of people who left the corps. Something had to be done to hold on to qualified people.

The only thing flourishing in the Police Force was the number of crimes against its members because they were not booking enough Litter Act offenders. Dr Falzon said this must stop immediately. The Malta Police Association had written a letter saying it would help its members facing disciplinary proceedings.

There were also cases of discrimination in how promotions and medals were given. Dr Falzon promised the opposition's support to those who had been overstepped in promotion to major. There was also an attempt at appointing assistant commissioners, and again the opposition would be defending those discriminated against.

Cases of abuse and obscenities, such as that of Raymond Zammit, were not acceptable. He quoted a letter from the Malta Police Association listing the various injustices against their members. None of their requests, such as the right to work part time, the 40-hour week, and pension's reform had been met.

Concluding, Dr Falzon asked the minister to carry out a survey among the members of the corps to hear their complaints directly.

Opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera said that the judiciary was one of the pillars of the state and one would have expected the Prime Minister to spell out the sense of direction it was taking.

There was an ideological aspect with which the opposition did not agree. It seemed that the government was more intent on decreasing the waiting list of court cases by introducing authorities which usurped judicial work. The opposition believed that the competence of the courts must be increased. What was worrying was the delay in the processes.

The government had introduced a 'forced' arbitration system, which in itself was meant to be something to which the parties referred voluntarily. This had become a court parallel with others. A number of constitutional cases had been filed and he believed that processes should be frozen.

Dr Herrera agreed with the systems of both the commissioner for justice and the small claims tribunal for the determination of small cases, as had now come to be accepted. On the criminal side one could only assign decriminalised cases, but the small claims tribunal had simply become an extension of the magistrates' courts.

On the civil side, things were almost at the limit because the small claims tribunal's competence had become so extended that it had surpassed the values that could be decided on by magistrates a few years ago. It was time to reconsider the original law because now they were almost magistrates. There must be guarantees of impartiality and independence, otherwise one would be creating a new class of magistrate not according to law.

Dr Herrera said he believed that competences must be raised. It was only the procedure that gave cause for concern.

New legislative intervention was needed to ensure administrative satisfaction to citizens. Efforts had been made by both the PN and the MLP, but both had not been conducive to a solution; these efforts had boiled down to the creation of temporary tribunals with only the means to recommend. Then Justice Minister Tonio Borg had made a courageous effort to put things right, but an administrative tribunal presided by a judge or magistrate with recourse to appeal was still not off the ground. The oppositrion had proposed to go all the way, because what use could be a tribunal with a judge without forming part of the judicial body?

The way forward to strengthen administrative syndication was to have an administrative court as a court, not a tribunal.

The commercial court should also have the competence of a maritime court. Over past years Malta had developed as a centre of financial services with 50,000 companies registered in Malta, and the third largest maritime flag. With such a commercial court Malta could re-create an economic niche.

Dr Herrera warned that one must be careful in the choice of members of the judiciary, who immediately on appointment became incumbents of independent positions. In today's age the appointment of judges should be done through a different lens. It was no longer the case that in order to be appointed judge a lawyer had to be a court practitioner. More than 70 per cent of lawyers currently did not practise in court, yet many of them were very knowledgeable. Why should such persons be precluded from becoming judges?

Dr Herrera said the current definition of what made a lawyer needed revision. Things were now more complex and different than 10 years ago. The field must be extended and included in the Constitution.

He said security must be taken in consideration with a lawyer's competence when appointing magistrates and judges.

The current retirement age of judges could induce people to believe that a judge nearing retirement age would be careful not to ruffle the government's feathers in the hope of getting a post-retirement appointment. This was tarnishing the general image of the judiciary. The problem could be solved by raising the retirement age or reviewing judges' pensions.

On the role of the Chief Justice, Dr Herrera said there must be clear separation among the judiciary, the legislative and the administrative. Historically, the Chief Justice had always been the president of the highest court, but now Malta was taking the direction in which this traditional role was being denaturalised. The incumbent was one of the best and most efficient ever and it was right for him to have additional administrative powers, but not so much as to make him de facto minister of justice. The appointment of judges to cases should remain the prerogative of the state.

Rules of court had recently been promulgated not by the minister of justice but by a committee chaired by the Chief Justice. It made no sense to allow the Chief Justice to legislate, just as it made no sense to have the civil service interfere with the courts. New guidelines were needed to avoid overlapping.

Dr Herrera said the legal aid system was not working properly and there was no interest in the position of legal counsel because they were now working for a pittance.

There were problems in the system of holding inquiries while, in eight years, the tribunal for the investigation of injustices had not delivered one sentence finding the government at fault.

The lists of experts to be called on to help in magisterial inquires tended to undermine the independence of the judicial process.

The Attorney General was assuming an ever-greater role, even deciding on whether a drugs case should go to trial by jury. This was wrong because the AG was not part of the judiciary.

The system of presidential pardons was not transparent enough. It was important that such pardons continued to exist in general, and there should also be a system of parole.

Dr Herrera said he agreed with a recent consultative document on the self-regulation of lawyers, but not with the notion that a lawyer's warrant should be renewed every two or three years unless he attended seminars. This would preclude ageing lawyers or politicians.

Neither did he agree that lawyers should be precluded from business activities altogether. Lawyers were not public officials, and they must indeed be regulated.

Concluding, Dr Herrera said he agreed that lawyers working for large companies should be allowed to divest themselves of personal liability, so long as they took out insurance cover.