A bill to expedite the processing of applications for refugee status started being debated in the House of Representatives yesterday.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said this bill, amending the Refugees Act, incorporated lessons learnt since the principal act was approved by the House in 2000.

It was worth recalling that the arrival of illegal immigrants peaked in 2002 when 1,680 people landed in Malta illegally over a period of 11 months. That number was huge by Malta's standards - Malta was not only small but it also had a high population density. It was thus not possible for Malta to allow migrants to roam freely, even when they sought refugee status, and the government was committed to retain its detention policy.

The government, however, also wanted to ensure that detention would not last any longer than necessary.

In many cases detention was long because of the time it took to establish the migrant's identity and the fact that when a migrant lost his appeal for refugee status, he appealed. In any case, the processing of applications for refugee status in Malta had not been shown to be any longer than the European average. Still, in cases - nearly 200 - where detention took more than 18 months, those involved had still been given their freedom.

This bill would seek to further expedite the processing of applications for refugee status. It provided for the appointment of assistant commissioners for refugees to consider applications with the Commissioner for Refugees. There would also be more Chambers of the Refugee Appeals Board which, among other things, heard appeals from deportation orders. The board could also grant provisional freedom for refugees who claimed they had been in detention for an unreasonably long time. But the board could not release detainees for a number of reasons, such as when the applicant's identity was not clear or when such release caused problems of public order. People in detention could not apply for release before one year.

This bill introduced the concept of "safe countries of origin." In terms of the bill no application for refugee status would be accepted from citizens of countries designated by the minister to be safe, such as most European countries. This proviso would be amended, and in such cases applications would be considered, summarily, with the presumption of denying them.

Opposition home affairs spokesman Gavin Gulia said this was not a political issue.

Indeed, the opposition over the past few years had not sought political capital over the problem of illegal migration, although it did criticise the government on some aspects. He was disappointed that two meetings on illegal immigration held by the Social Affairs Committee had not been followed up by the drafting of a national policy. Unfortunately Malta was continuing to be reactive, not pro-active. His appeal was for work on such a policy to be taken up.

Dr Gulia said that one had to consider the rights and obligations not just of illegal immigrants, but also of the state. The first duty of the state was to protect Maltese society. One had to consider who could be eligible to be granted refugee status. There had to be a distinction between economic migrants and political migrants.

The UN Convention on the Status of Refugees defined refugees as being those who were in real fear of persecution in their own countries for reasons such as race, nationality or belief. There was no mention of economic migrants, who fled their country because it had a weak economy. However unfortunate these people were, they were not entitled to protection under the law in Malta and all over the world.

Turning to conditions in detention centres, Dr Gulia said that after having visited the centres, he could say he was not happy with conditions.

At Ta' Kandia he had found overcrowded dormitories with a lack of privacy. The migrants were allowed recreation in the yard for only one hour a day. He had since been told that this had been extended although more progress could be made.

Sanitary conditions also needed to be improved. There was no doubt that conditions at the prisons were better than at the detention centres.

True, the migrants sometimes vandalised the detention centres, but one needed to understand the sense of frustration which existed.

Dr Gulia said there were two types of detainees, those awaiting processing of their application for refugee status, and those whose application had been rejected but could not be deported because their identity was unknown and they were not helping the authorities to acquire the necessary documentation.

The state was giving limited freedom to the former in some cases. But what would happen in the case of those who were refused refugee status, but who could not be deported? Was it the unofficial position that they could also be granted freedom after 18 months detention? The government should be clear on this point. Indeed, the letter of the law indicated that such people should remain in detention.

Dr Gulia said there was no doubt that the Commissioner for Refugees and the Refugee Appeals Board had been inundated with applications for refugee status, and consideration of applications had been slow. In some cases, such as when the migrants did not cooperate, the authorities were not to blame. But there were cases where migrants were interviewed four months after submitting their application and they had heard nothing about their application six months later.

Now the bill, rightly, provided for the appointment of assistant commissioners and more chambers of the board, which would hopefully speed up procedures when there was an influx of applications.

It was his hope that the board would be more transparent in its deliberations, especially as its decisions were final. There had been several cases where appeal decisions were one liners without any motivation for the decisions. He had full confidence in the people who ran the board, but he felt there should be an audit of how the board functioned.

Dr Gulia criticised mass escapes of illegal immigrants, such as the 50 that had escaped from police headquarters and 22 from Ta' Kandja, saying such events ridiculed the detention policy. There was need for greater seriousness, discipline and security.

Labour MP Joe Abela said the Refugees Act filled a legal void and, as a result, immigration was no longer considered as a criminal act. It was a positive step that the government also understood that people could not be detained for ever.

Mr Abela said NGOs working with detainees should remain independent of the government, otherwise they would lose the trust of the detainees. At the same time, the fact that NGOs were allowed to enter detention centres was of great benefit to the detainees and the country in general.

He regretted that a committee meant to coordinate the work of government departments and NGOs with regard to illegal immigrants had not met since November. The aim of this committee was to establish policies, avoid overlapping of duties and address complaints by the migrants. But the committee never reached its aims. The fact that the committee was not meeting meant there was now no forum where illegal migration was discussed.

He felt the Ministry of Home Affairs should itself have a department/unit which was involved in this issue.

What had become of the Director of Third Country Nationals? Who was the person now directly responsible for this sector? The minister?

Mr Abela said he respected Charles Buttigieg, the Commissioner for Refugees, but his office was still inadequately equipped and the processing of applications for refugee status was taking too long - nine months on average. Should Malta continue to have a part-time commissioner?

It was not right that former detainees were working as interpreters for the commissioner as it raised questions among applicants.

Mr Abela said tension often arose because of misinformation or lack of information. He therefore felt that illegal immigrants should be informed of procedure and of their rights when they arrived.

Was the government seeking EU funds to help it tackle the problems of illegal immigration? The problem, after all, was likely to grow as Malta was now an EU frontier state. It should not be made to shoulder such responsibilities alone.

Referring to the deportation of migrants from Eritrea, Mr Abela said he did not want to blame anyone, but all should admit that mistakes could have been made. The forced repatriation of these people had shamed Malta internationally. Perhaps Malta should have used the services of international agencies involved in this work.

Mr Abela also spoke on the situation in the Open Camp. He said the Peace Lab was prepared to manage such camps if the government gave it the necessary resources and three people as staff. Certainly, the camp could not continue to be run in the current manner. Money was being wasted and one had to guard against exploitation of the residents.

Concluding, Mr Abela asked why 39 illegal immigrants were still in detention after more than 18 months.

Dr Joe Brincat (MLP) spoke on the difficult situation which forced people to become refugees. Many of these people came from countries whose riches had been stripped by colonial powers. He pointed out that Albert Einstein and Henry Kissinger had once been refugees.

All needed to remember that refugees were human beings. Many Maltese had once been refugees in other countries, initially in the Mediterranean rim. The Maltese were hospitable people as even mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. But he feared that this reputation was being lost. This bill provided that the minister may declare "safe" countries (from whose citizens no application for refugee status could be accepted.) He felt this was a mistake. Such countries may not be safe at all. And according to the Convention on Human Rights and European Court sentences, an applicant should have his situation examined by a competent tribunal.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.