Sant views bill as "shameful abdication of national interest"

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said yesterday that a bill amending the Immigration Act was a "shameful abdication of the national interest" as it was aimed solely at the adoption of EU regulations on the free movement of persons and the EU common visa policy.

He promised that a future Labour government would seek to restore Maltese sovereignty and control in such sectors, as it would do in other sectors such as fisheries.

The bill, which was later given a second reading after a division, is divided into two parts. The first eases procedures for the deportation of illegal immigrants and foreigners found to be in Malta in violation of the immigration law. It also empowers the minister of home affairs to draw up regulations to implement agreements reached with other countries on border controls and the movement of people. Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg had explained at the opening of the debate that upon accession to the EU, this bill would enable Malta to implement its agreement with the Union on the free movement of persons, and it would also enable Malta to join the Schengen agreement on border controls and the common visa policy.

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said legislation should be in the national interest, but this bill certainly was not. How would Malta benefit from the adoption of the EU regulations on the free movement of persons or the common visa policy?

With regard to the former, it was clear that upon EU membership, any European self-employed person could be able to work in Malta without restriction. So too would any worker who engaged himself under a service contract. Employed workers too would be free to work here with hardly any restriction, despite what the government said.

One did not expect a tidal wave of foreign workers after accession, but even an increase of three to six per cent would pose a serious problem for the labour sector, and an increase of 10 per cent would be disastrous.

This influx of EU workers and self-employed would also put upward pressure on local property prices since such people would obviously seek a place where to stay.

No one was suggesting that Malta should close its borders, but the Maltese government should retain an effective right to act when the job security of Maltese workers and the self-employed was threatened.

What the government had done was to give Brussels the levers to control Malta's labour and property markets.

Turning to visa policy, Dr Sant said Malta had an interest as a free country to be open for friendly relations and trade links with all of its neighbours. As a country in the middle of the Mediterranean, both sides of the House had over the years agreed that Malta should have good relations with the countries in both the northern and the southern rims of the Mediterranean.

The government's decision to adopt the EU's common visa policy would mean the imposition of visa requirements on visitors from North Africa when no such controls would be in force for visitors from the north.

In order to adopt EU regulations, Malta was imposing visas on people who came from countries which were Malta's friends and neighbours. What was the benefit for Malta in all this?

One could not ignore the psychological impact this decision would have, as well as the political and trade repercussions.

There was no doubt that the friendship between Malta and Libya was the basis for the growth of the Corinthia group, for example. This was a joint venture which was providing work for several other companies, particularly through the building of the Corinthia hotel in Tripoli. Many workers were travelling to and fro as a result, thanks mostly to the current ease of travel because no visa requirements existed. The same applied for tourism.

The fact that Malta did not demand a visa for visitors from North Africa was an advantage where it came to trade and tourism which countries on the northern side of the Mediterranean did not have. Now Malta was robbing itself of this.

To make matters worse, the introduction of the visa system would mean a cost for Maltese taxpayers for something that was not in the national interest. How high would this cost be?

As in the case of the fisheries sector, where the government was surrendering sovereignty over waters 12 to 25 miles off Malta, in the case of visa policy and the movement of persons a future Labour government would restore the situation to national control.

Dr Sant said that as he had written in The Times, rather than concentrate on EU relations, whether for membership or a partnership, it would be better to have a national effort focused on national priorities such as tackling the deficit, improving competitiveness, attracting foreign direct investment and addressing problems in the environment, tourism and education sectors.

This did not mean that he was in any way giving up on the policy of seeking a partnership with the EU. That was the best option for Malta's relationship with the EU, but everyone had to understand that no one but the Maltese would solve the problems that Malta was facing, and they should therefore give them priority.

Notary Joe Cilia (MLP) said this bill was not only aimed at deterring illegal immigrants, but also at facilitating legal migration from EU member states if Malta joined the bloc.

Any influx of foreigners, legal or illegal, was sure to have an impact on the labour sector, he warned.

In terms of the EU membership talks, Malta in the first seven years after membership could suspend working permits in emergency and exceptional cases when the number of foreign workers risked causing disruption of the Maltese labour sector. But no one had defined what these exceptional circumstances would be. Indeed, Malta was already experiencing problems caused by illegal workers who worked here without paying taxes, enabling their employers to undercut prices to the detriment of law-abiding competitors.

Not even this limited protection was being afforded for the Maltese self-employed. The government was claiming it could impose quotas to restrict the opening of businesses and the provision of new services, but what it was not saying was that these quotas would apply to the Maltese as much as foreigners.

Winding up, Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg referred to earlier opposition remarks, insisting that new procedures which would facilitate the deportation of illegal migrants or people violating the Immigration Act would not violate the European Convention or the Constitution. While a deportation order could now be issued by the Principal Immigration Officer instead of the courts, the people involved would have the right to appeal before the Immigration Appeals Board.

Although illegal immigration was being depenalised, illegal immigrants could still be held in detention while awaiting deportation, as provided by the Constitution.

It had even been argued by the opposition that the setting up of the board to decide on deportations instead of the courts was a dangerous principle because this would be an administrative tribunal, which was more liable to government pressure than the courts. Dr Borg said that in terms of the Constitution, such tribunals having a judicial role also had to be impartial and independent and the government could not intervene in any way.

The setting up of the board, however, would free the courts of more than 700 cases every year.

Dr Borg stressed that any foreigners who, while violating the Immigration Act also committed a crime would still be taken before the ordinary courts.

Turning to the free movement of workers, Dr Borg said the regulations would be issued upon accession and not now because they would form part of the whole membership package.

Malta, he observed, had been the only candidate country which had been granted a seven-year exception whereby the government could unilaterally regulate the movement of EU workers to Malta whenever it was reasonably felt that distortions could be caused to the domestic labour sector.

The same applied to the purchase of properties. Indeed, Malta had been granted a permanent arrangement whereby no one would be able to buy a secondary residence in Malta unless he was resident here for five years.

One could not claim, therefore, that Malta had renounced its independence. It was true it was reducing its rights, but that had to be seen in the context of the whole package of EU membership.

Dr Borg said the opposition was trying to scare businessmen regarding visas for visitors from North African countries. As he had said before, year-long visas could be issued for people who travelled frequently to Malta.

Could anybody claim that trade between Tunisia and France, or Morocco and Spain, had been hindered by visa requirements?

The visas, Dr Borg said, would be issued, with responsibility, by the Maltese government and not the EU. And it had to be borne in mind that such visas would enable their holders to travel not only to Malta, but within the countries, all over Europe, which were party to the Schengen agreement.

As for the costs of the adoption of the EU visa policy, this would be recovered from the charges levied for the issue of the visas themselves.