PN MP Mario Demarco said that mediation is a long-standing concept adding that the so called alternative dispute resolution was a relatively innovative method used to resolve cases more efficiently. He said that this format of case resolution is often more user-friendly and more accessible than the traditional and often rigid way in which things were done in court.

The advantage of this system over the standard legal system is that there is no loser or winner as both parties come to a consensual agreement. Since the mediator does not issue a ruling, the antagonism that results between litigating parties is mitigated because of the consensual nature of the medium.

This method is often more efficient than the procedures used in court and even more financially accessible. However, Dr Demarco emphasised, it is a complement to the courts rather than a competitor.

Malta is not re-inventing the wheel with the introduction of this bill but was following in the footsteps of a trend set across the European Union. Quoting from a green paper issued recently by the European commission, he said that there were numerous European countries in which certain cases were not seen in court before they first went through a mediation process.

Reacting to the criticism MLP spokesman Dr Josè Herrera made on Tuesday, Dr Demarco said that the idea of mediation was still not very popular among Maltese people, which is why there was need for the setting up of a centre that could also help promote the concept of mediation.

Dr Herrera had argued against what he said was the government’s fixation to create centres and subdivisions of the courts.

Dr Demarco echoed a suggestion made by Dr Herrera, saying that the choice of mediator should be left to the parties involved in the case of consensus, and should only be assigned where there is no agreement.

MLP spokesman Gavin Gulia said that the opposition was in favour of the bill and that it was not possible to be against the bill in principle. However, while stating that he had some reservations about the structure of the mediation centre, he went on to speak about the legal system in general, which, he said, is undergoing haphazard reform.

He said that while he agreed the legal system needed to undergo reform, nonetheless since 1998 the Nationalist government seems to be moving towards dismantling of the court and is dissolving its power into smaller institutions.

Unfortunately, he said, there were a number of areas in which this policy was failing. He said that the way the bill was drafted did not allow any of the litigating parties to decide when they wanted to stop the process once it has started unless both parties agreed to stop it.

Dr Gulia said that this is dangerous as one of the parties could drag its feet, especially the party knowing that it did not have a good case. He said that just as the process had to be entered voluntarily, so it should be that any party wanting to pull out of the process could do so unilaterally.

Regarding the list of mediators from which the bill drafted stipulates mediators should be chosen, Dr Gulia warned that this would be another classic case of providing jobs for the boys as was the trend in a number of structures the present government set up.

PN MP Edwin Vassallo made the argument that if a person’s history in politics disqualified him or her from serving in public office then this would disqualify many valid people. He questioned whether it would be fair that people who have dedicated time to politics could not compete with other people for positions in the public sector.

He said that the fact the opposition was calling members of parliament from the government’s benches “bulldozers” was a sign that the government was active and working hard to come up with innovative solutions. “It is likely that the bill is not perfect and needed some amendments however the government is showing the will to do its job.”

Mr Vassallo concluded by saying that the concept behind the mediation bill should be used as a template for further reform within the legal sector, as it was an attempt by the government to provide an innovative solution to make life easier for people and businesses.