A national problem

Opposition spokesman Gavin Gulia (August 17) took the government to task for failing to deal with the immigration problem in the right manner. He argues that the government has not done any real concrete work in order to cater for a sudden influx of immigrants were this to happen at one go.

The immigration problem started creating devastating consequences in 2002 when 1,680 persons landed on our shores. Our immigration authorities, assisted by the Armed Forces, provided temporary shelter for such persons even if in detention centres.

There are indeed no easy solutions to this problem. Dr Gulia likes hunting with the hounds and running with the hares; he is all out in favour of detention centres, and at the same time criticises the government for allowing such places in an overcrowded state; then when the government, on humanitarian grounds, released detainees who had been held in detention for months on end, he conveniently branded the authorities as being too lax and held in ransom by immigrants who, undeserving of protection under the law, bear the burden of detention for 18 months or so in the hope of being released.

I do not intend to re-open past controversies but it is pertinent to point out, once and for all, that all this interest by Labour in the plight of irregular immigrants is the fruit of recent conversion; in 1998 a Labour government consciously vetoed a proposal to enact a refugee law setting refugees' rights in a legal framework and guaranteeing certain internationally-recognised rights to persons deserving legal protection; indeed even throughout the parliamentary debate on the Refugees Act 2000, certain Labour members of parliament were wary of promoting such legislation.

In spite of all difficulties the government also succeeded in maintaining a steady pace in repatriating persons not deserving protection under the law; this was done in spite of criticisms - some of them based purely on the benefit of hindsight - as happened with the repatriation of Eritrean nationals; those who do not apply for refugee status or are refused such status by our local independent authorities cannot expect to remain in Malta; in this respect one should follow the law in this regard and nothing else.

Certainly all efforts should be made to seek international assistance to help soften the effects of this new phenomenon on our limited human and financial resources; this is being done on different fronts but as the Cap Anamur incident revealed, in matters relating to illegal migration, shifting not sharing the problem is still the order of the day; indeed we have requested assistance even for capital projects, for example new or improved detention or open centres, and this will be discussed with the European Union in the near future.

Dr Gulia criticises the government for not applying for European Refugee Fund (ERF) assistance and referred to the fact that application for funds for 2004, possibly for improvement of conditions in detention centres, for 2004 closed on July 16, 2004. This is absolutely false. Under the ERF I (2000-2004) Malta, becoming a member in mid-2004, was only entitled to Lm50,000 in direct assistance.

Following a call for proposals Malta submitted two project proposals in conjunction with the Emigrants' Commission and the Jesuit Refugee Service, one for the provision of housing to unaccompanied minors seeking refuge in Malta, the other to enhance housing and shelter for refugees and persons deserving humanitarian protection. Both project proposals were submitted much before the extended July 16 deadline.

Under the new ERF II (2005-2010) e500,000 per annum are to be made available to Malta as a fixed allocation on an annual basis; other financing is to be based on figures for granting of protection to displaced persons. It is under this new fund that Malta is to make further proposals for consideration. Even though projects of a capital expenditure are not easily accepted as proposals, the improvement of our detention and open centres shall be one of the project proposals, if not under this new fund at least on a "special case" basis in view of the recent increasing number of arrivals.

I appreciate Dr Gulia's support in this regard; and there is no doubt that now that we are members of the Union every effort should be made to receive the most extensive assistance possible; it is a pity that just over a year ago, the opposition spokesman was not so convinced of EU benefits in this regard. Had we taken his advice then, we would have been completely alone now in trying to offer tangible solutions to the problem of irregular migration.

It is not this government which has its priorities wrong; but the opposition, which has tried to register partisan political benefit out of a national problem.