Sant says adoption of Euro rights convention should be model for change

The way how the government was gradually introducing the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights into Maltese law was in sharp contrast to the rapid adoption of EU regulations without consideration to their local impact, opposition leader Alfred Sant has told parliament.

Speaking during the debate on the bill amending the European Convention Act, Dr Sant observed that the provisions of the convention were being introduced gradually after mature debate and full consideration of their impact in Malta.

The same could not be said in the way the government was bulldozing EU rules into Maltese law and implementing the acquis without proper discussion. This was not doing Malta any good and was creating confusion.

The government was adopting EU regulations in the financial, taxation, tourism, education and environment sectors with the operators hardly knowing what was happening.

At the same time, Malta's proper priorities for modernisation, restructuring, a restoration of competitivess, improvement of the environment and of government efficiency were being sidelined.

Dr Sant referred to his participation in the meetings on the Convention on the Future of Europe and said that many of the proceedings, while interesting, had no relevance to Malta and the choices which the Maltese people needed to make.

The government was currently following a timetable which was not Malta's.

The debate Malta should have was not on EU membership but on its real priorities for the welfare of its people.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg, who spoke earlier, recalled how the first law approved under the Nationalist government in 1987 was to make the European Convention part of Maltese law. This law was made superior to other laws. Up to that time there were Maltese judges on the European court, but Maltese citizens had not had the right to take their government to court over alleged human right violations.

Furthermore, in Malta itself, while certain rights were guaranteed in the constitution, others had not been in the law. Once the convention became law, a number of cases could be successfully prosecuted in Malta. Among them was the right for parents to send children to the school of their own choice. The European Convention also had a wider definition of "discrimination."

In 1989 the constitution was also amended to ban gender discrimination.

This bill was now making law the protocols to the convention. Many of the rights in those protocols were already part of the law but others were new. For example there could be no collective expulsion of foreigners. Another new right was the right to compensation for wrongful conviction of a criminal offence.

In some areas, Malta was even more advanced than what was laid down in the protocols. For example, Malta allowed no exceptions to the right for a person not to be tried or punished twice, while the protocol did allow exceptions. Malta banned the death penalty for whatever reasons, while the protocol allowed it in time of war.

Maltese law had long laid down that no national could be exiled from Malta.

This bill, Dr Borg said was a step forward in human and political rights.

Dr Michael Frendo (PN) said the Nationalist Party had always respected fundamental human rights when in government and implemented promises it made when it was in opposition. It had not been enough to sign the European Convention of Human Rights and it was a Nationalist government which gave the people the right and the opportunity to present their cases before the European Court.

This bill emphasised that the citizens' rights were sacred and that no government or state had a right to abuse or remove such rights.

Malta was not simply signing protocols which could be applied in the Strasbourg court but the protocols were being made part of Maltese law and applicable to the Maltese courts. This made all the difference.

Dr Frendo said he did not agree with Dr Sant's remarks on the Convention on the Future of Europe. EU membership and adoption of the acquis were a strategic decision.

Winding up, Justice Minister Austin Gatt said the protocols had not been adopted earlier because amendments had needed to be made to domestic legislation.

Substantial delay was also caused due to the fact that the Labour government had not been keen to strengthen human rights. Indeed, the Labour governments of Dom Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici had abused of such rights and been found guilty by the courts.

Dr Sant could not act as if all this had not happened, as he was a prominent member and even president of the Labour Party at the time.

It was an achievement of the Nationalist government that the European Convention became part of Maltese law.

This bill was a continuation of other laws which strengthened fundamental human rights. This was not being done because the government was seeking EU membership. The government was strengthening democracy and the people's rights as a matter of principle.

The bill was then given a second reading.