In spite of Gavin Gulia’s exercise (TMID, 18 December) in portraying the opposition as tough on law and order, his attempt is indeed proving to be futile. Labour is merely reactive to this subject with no concrete proposals of any sort.

The evident disarray in the opposition’s train of thought was also blatantly evident in the recent debate on tougher measures relating to money laundering.

In his reply to my introductory address, Dr Gulia, opposition spokesman on home affairs, lamented that not enough convictions had been secured in the law courts in money-laundering cases. He even remarked that, in spite of the setting up of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) headed by the Attorney General, much needed to be done.

Two days later, two other opposition MPs expressed doubts and reservations about the government’s plan to confine money-launderers with more stringent measures! The bill approved by the House, for instance, allows the Court (an independent institution) at the request of the Attorney General (an independent person whose office is protected by the constitution) to issue monitoring orders to banking institutions against suspected money launderers. One Opposition MP criticised the fact that the monitored suspect would not be informed of the monitoring order! He also raised questions regarding the inclusion of reasonable suspicion as a basis for knowledge of provenance of proceeds from criminal activity.

Dr Jose Herrera took the floor to criticise the new provisions granting the Attorney General the discretion to channel different money-laundering cases to superior or inferior courts, depending on the seriousness of each case, as is the case with drug trafficking.

Dr Herrera described these powers granted to the chief prosecuting officer in Malta as “extensive”, conveniently forgetting that a similar provision in the Drugs Ordinance was challenged in vain in the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, with both courts declaring such a provision perfectly legal and legitimate.

The bill broadens the definition of money laundering. Instead of praising this measure, Dr Herrera even went as far as to claim that such a measure could “scare away investors”!

This is not the first time that while Labour labours to project itself as tough on crime, when it comes to parliamentary voting or interventions, it does the exact opposite and “votes soft”.

When the government introduced an appeal by the Attorney General against lenient judgements, or against acquittals of persons charged with serious offences, all hell broke loose, and the opposition voted against such measures, even calling for a division. The same applied when amendments were introduced to enable criminal accomplices to “betray” and give evidence with greater ease against their partners in crime.

In spite of Dr Gulia` s demagogic exercise in describing the situation in Malta in apocalyptic terms, he knows full well that the crime rate has decreased for the second year running; in commenting sarcastically on the HSBC hold up this month, he conveniently forgot to mention the e2.3 million armed robbery executed in 1997 – a record held by Labour and still to be equalled; under Labour the crime rate increased by 12 per cent annually and police income was drastically reduced by slashing police presence on weekends and public holidays.

Labour’s lack of interest in justice and home affairs goes as far as omitting any reference to such a vast subject in its supposedly novel “New Beginning” document. Labour promised a new beginning in 1996, another one in 1998 and a third in 2003. This is supposed to be the fourth “new beginning”. But in justice and home affairs, Labour has not yet proposed, much less implemented “any new beginning”.

Tonio Borg is Justice and Home Affairs Minister