The rule of law is the bedrock of society. It is crucial to ensure that laws are upheld and that the necessary resources are provided to enforce them.

Malta’s system of justice is creaking. Wherever one looks, whether it is the Commission for the Administration of Justice, the judiciary, the law courts, the professionalism and training of the Malta Police Force or the Corradino Correctional Facility, there are gaping holes in the system from top to bottom, and the delivery of fair justice and upholding of the law leave much to be desired.

The evidence has been mounting for the last several years that all is not well. The backlog of cases in the courts and the sclerotic pace at which the wheels of justice turn have attracted the main attention. But that is not all. A number of reports have highlighted the gaps in the justice system not just in the front line – in the courts of justice – but also in the way the courts deal with those who have offended against society and their incarceration at Corradino. The way youth offenders and drug addicts are handled has been found wanting. Another report found serious areas of mismanagement in the prison service as well as an endemic drug culture.

The situation is further compounded by dissatisfaction among members of the judiciary itself about their conditions and terms of service, as well as doubts about the quality and selection process for judges and magistrates. The Chamber of Advocates has pointed out that “members of the judiciary are not accountable”. The Commission for the Administration of Justice under the President has an extremely limited role and appears, like the Chief Justice, to be toothless.

It is against this bleak background that the negotiations into which Justice Minister Chris Said – one of the few ministerial successes in the government – has entered with the judiciary should be viewed. Under our constitution, our independent judiciary is the vital cog that ensures – or should ensure – that all citizens are treated equally and impartially under the law. The rule of law, grounded in the independence of the judiciary, is the ultimate protector of our liberty.

The starting point of any discussion about the justice system in Malta, therefore, should be that if we desire an efficient judiciary, the conditions and terms of service under which judges and magistrates are expected to serve should be good enough to not only attract lawyers of the right calibre, but also to ensure that the administrative and support conditions under which they operate are efficient and effective.

In the run-up to the general election, it is important for the government to ensure that this particular segment of the public service does not feel alienated. Unlike the civil service and the Malta Police Force, whose voting numbers run into thousands and who have already been promised quite generous increases in their pay, the judiciary does not command so many votes. But this is not the issue. Natural justice, as well as the national interest, demands that the pay and conditions under which the judiciary operates should be fair and commensurate with the vital role they play in society.

The government has pitched its offer to the judiciary on the broad basis of improvements to the pay and pensions of judges and magistrates in direct exchange for efficiency and productivity improvements to the administration of justice. It is thought that the offer would see an increase in allowances staggered over three years, raising their annual pay by 2015 to about €62,500 for judges and €57,000 for magistrates, together with an award on retirement of an “uncapped” pension of two-thirds of actual salary in line with the similar arrangement given to Members of Parliament some years ago. This latter aspect of the remuneration package has particularly caught the attention of the public as it is generally viewed as being divisive and unfair. The special pension privilege which Members of Parliament awarded to themselves still rankles with the public. Extending it to another group of public servants at a time when the rest of the population is under financial pressure – and the Maltese pension system as a whole is seen as unaffordable - seems especially inept and discriminatory.

Some of the proposals in the package presented by Minister Chris Said for improvements to the administration of justice will require amendments to the constitution for which a two-thirds majority in the House will be required. The Opposition has said it is against several parts of the deal that has been struck with the judiciary. In particular, the Opposition has highlighted concerns about giving the judiciary an increase in pay at a time of economic stringency. Without the Opposition’s support, the proposed improvements to the administration of justice will fall.

While it would be absolutely right and proper for the Opposition to object to the inclusion of the judiciary in the “uncapped” category of two-thirds pension on the grounds of equity (what a pity that Members of Parliament were so crass and unthinking as to have voted themselves this privilege in the first place – but that is now water under the bridge), it would be a great setback to the wide-ranging improvements that urgently need to be made in this whole area if the rest of the package were not to go ahead. As the Chief Justice has rightly said, picking on just one aspect of the proposed changes, “whether or not the government grants the allowances promised to the judiciary to introduce a system to appoint civil cases, more sittings in the afternoon where needed, and more training, I will insist they should still be implemented”.

These are the responsible words of somebody who realises the dire need for change. It would be extremely short-sighted of the Opposition – who may well find themselves in government in a few weeks time – to stand against the pay package on grounds of the “economic climate” for two reasons. First, the increase to the total public service salary bill is relatively small (there are only about 40 judges and magistrates). And, secondly, the consequences of again postponing these long overdue improvements would be to perpetuate inefficiency in a vital area of public life that is crying out for reform and improvement. Political expediency should not come into this.

On the assumption that the package agreed will be without any commitment to an uncapped two-thirds pension, it would be wrong of the Opposition to play politics by pandering to those who short-sightedly consider that giving the judiciary a pay rise staged over three years will somehow be interpreted as “favouring the rich” or as a threat to the economy. Justice reform is too important a matter to be dealt with in a partisan fashion. The Labour Party should show that on an issue of such fundamental importance to the country, it has the breadth of vision, the courage and the capacity to rise above party politics.