Editorial

At the instigation of its Civil Liberties Committee, the European Parliament has debated an urgent resolution on illegal immigration in Malta. This was formally moved following the visit to Malta by a committee delegation and their shock at what they saw in the detention centres.

The main thrust of the resolution was a request for derogation from Malta's obligations under the Dublin II Convention. This would have meant that asylum seekers who landed here could move on to other countries in Europe and have their applications for asylum processed there.

This would also have led to Malta becoming to all intents and purposes a "transit state" in the EU for immigration purposes, as opposed to a "country of destination" as the island is now.

While the problem of illegal immigration here would not cease, it would at least mitigate significantly both the short term and, more importantly, the long term consequences of immigration. This would in turn reduce the impact on Malta financially and remove the huge, emerging social and economic strains of integrating hundreds of immigrants into a country exceptionally densely populated and ill-prepared to cope with such an influx.

Thanks to the concerted efforts of all the Maltese MEPs and many others across the European political spectrum, the vote in the Parliament was overwhelmingly carried. This is a most heartening result. But it is only the beginning of the process. The ministers of 24 other nations have to be convinced that "the Dublin II Convention regulating illegal immigration and asylum should be amended to take note of the specific problems concerning small member states, such as Malta, and introduce burden-sharing mechanisms between the EU member states". Sources, described to be close to the European Commission, have been reported as deeming it "highly improbable that other member states will accept this recommendation".

Where, therefore, does this leave Malta?

While it should press hard for amendments to the convention, Malta would do well not to hold its breath waiting for a change. It would be an exceptional piece of altruism on the part of those member states - the majority - in the EU to agree to this change being made. They might be willing - as one nation, The Netherlands, has done - voluntarily to take up some of Malta's burden. But to be bound by regulations to do so is a different matter.

Some months ago, EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini presented a package of measures to the Council of Ministers in Brussels. This agreed that an emergency fund to assist countries like Malta was to be set up. The Council also agreed that it would authorise joint maritime patrols in the Mediterranean to prevent illegal immigration and these would be coordinated by the EU Border Control Agency.

Progress on both these proposals has been dilatory. Yet, the new immigrant sailing season starts soon. The island's already overfull detention centres will shortly be bolstered by new arrivals. The Detention Service is stretched to capacity and there is little further manpower back-up which can be provided by the police or the Armed Forces of Malta without further undermining their other roles.

The bottom line is that Malta is virtually on its own in dealing with this issue and must adapt accordingly, guided solely by the need for a humane approach and its own perception of the national interest. Still, yesterday's European Parliament resolution is a good tool to have.