Government's efforts on illegal migration bearing few results

The opposition has promised the government support on illegal migration, with the opposition's foreign affairs spokesman saying this was a national problem which should not be politicised.

However, the government sometimes seemed to be rather frantic in its efforts, working on several fronts with very little results on the ground, Leo Brincat said during the budget debate.

He said that the small number of immigrants that had been taken by a small number of countries could only be seen as a political gesture.

Malta was being listened to, but getting very little by way of concrete help. The issue of illegal migration was also dealt with by Labour MP George Vella, who said although Malta was the smallest country, it was the most badly affected by the issue.

He said he was sorry to hear comments such as those by the German Foreign Minister that whoever wanted to resolve problems could stop asking for money because begging for money from others was always easy. Where was solidarity?

Dr Vella said he was convinced that Commissioner Franco Frattini meant well, but it was still a fact that the Maltese were being generally left on their own.

The government and the opposition had a common policy on the issue, but there was a need to debate with sub-Saharan African countries and Libya, whom Malta had always wished well but from whom it was seeing a lot of problems.

He expected Libya, as a friendly neighbour, to show some compassion with Malta, Dr Vella said. But the requests by Libya in technical meetings had been out of this world, including for equipment costing hundreds of millions of dinars and for 10 billion dinars a year for underdeveloped sub-Saharan countries.

The House, he said, should discuss Malta's role in this issue. Malta should be careful that it was not pushed aside, because although in absolute terms its problem was small, relatively it was the biggest.

Mr Leo Brincat said it was important for Malta to form a policy of inter-dependence with other larger countries due to its small size and lack of resources. It must be proactive in all issues rather than basing its foreign policy on a wait-and-see attitude, and must speak up at international fora consistently, convincingly and unequivocally.

Although the PN tried to look forward, certain aspects of its foreign policy were still linked to the past. Maltese official visits should be more focused on emerging economies, including Russia and China, which had very good potential for touristic, financial and transhipment development.

What had happened to the concept of a Mediterranean economic forum with Malta, Italy and Tunisia? Malta seemed to be taking too modest an approach to several countries with potential emerging economies.

The idea of opening a Maltese embassy in India to attract investment to Malta seemed to be a good one because the sub-continent had good potential for pharmaceuticals, software development and other business.

What had become of the three-year plan for Maltese embassies to do more for Malta?

One wondered what had resulted from the meeting of a joint commission on natural resources with Saudi Arabia. Malta should also take advantage of offers of cooperation from other countries.

Had Malta been correctly reported as being supportive of China on Tibet?

Mr Brincat said it was known that in spite of bilateral talks before Malta joined the EU, relations with Libya were not warm and reciprocally trusting. Even former Foreign Minister John Dalli had said that Malta should be more proactive with Libya, which had been and should remain an important source of economic and other relations. Unfortunately Libya was already side-stepping Malta and dealing directly with other bigger countries.

One definite area to explore was the possibilities of joint investments by Malta and Libya in the African continent.

Mr Brincat said the government seemed unsure of ideas on such issues. It looked on joint commissions very half-heartedly, but Libya was very keen on them. It was Libyans themselves who were perceiving Malta as having distanced itself after the lifting of trade sanctions, when the opposite should have been the case. This was a missed opportunity.

A Libyan Airways representative had said that less Libyans were visiting Malta because the entry visa made things difficult, with more hassle from Malta than other Schengen countries. Mr Brincat asked if there was any possible link between this and Libya's perceived lack of cooperation over illegal immigration, besides the fact that it had problems itself to control its desert frontier.

What Malta had built up with Libya over the past 30 years, under both Labour and Nationalist administrations, should be nurtured. The minister himself had said last year that relations with Libya were static and needed more dynamism. He was confident that this could be done, but had it?

Mr Brincat said Malta must conserve its Mediterranean identity as a prime mover, being innovative and creative even in helping other problem-stricken countries.

It could make good use of its good relations with Israel and the US to bring about a regional conference for comprehensive peace in the Middle East, averting potential civil war. The creation of a Palestinian state would actually help Israel to exist more securely within distinct boundaries. Malta had all the qualifications to act as a catalyst for such developments.

On reform in the United Nations Mr Brincat said Malta could not change anything on its own, but it must be clear with its visions. Unfortunately it did not seem to have a sense of mission or responsibility to help the world body.

The government seemed to have abandoned contact with certain regions, specifically Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Labour favoured good relations with the USA. There seemed to be a certain dynamism on security, but not so much on trade and economic issues. The double-taxation agreement had still not been finalised because Malta seemed to be dragging its feet with information to the US. It would not be a bad idea to adopt a give-and-take attitude with the US. The MLP's position to the new US embassy and its size was in direct contrast to the fuss kicked up by the PN when Russia had opened a rather large embassy in Malta.

Turning to oil exploration, on which he said expectations were built up before every election, Mr Brincat said nothing concrete seemed to have come from the agreement with Tunisia which Minister Frendo had hailed as a major breakthrough.

He said there did not seem to be a fixed policy on Malta Enterprise offices in Maltese embassies. The closing and opening of embassies should be more coherent. Labour was promising to launch a serious, objective study of the cost benefit of Maltese embassy presence in overseas countries. Embassies should be opened or closed not only for political but also for commercial and economic reasons.

It was true that Dr Frendo had not been involved in the posting of Richard Muscat as ambassador to Ireland, but he had missed a golden opportunity to distance himeslf when he had failed to take steps against him and Gaetan Naudi following the Voice of the Mediterranean saga. Had this been his choice or the result of pressure from above?

Mr Brincat said not enough seemed to have been done to help Maltese migrants overseas, especially in Australia and Canada.

In spite of its small size Malta must position itself better within the EU to better benefit from membership. New initiatives could beget both jobs and economic growth. Malta could use its EU connections to study the provision of oil, rather than just its prices.

Mr Brincat said he was encouraged by the recent OECD statement on pushing not only for growth but also enhanced engagement. Malta must interact with the OECD and other world bodies, such as the WTO, as a permanent hub on economic and other issues.

Dr Vella said the country's challenges and opportunities had to be dealt with by both sides together, using all the country's human resources and not creating a schism or apartheid between Nationalists and Labourites.

Countries that had joined the EU at the same time as Malta had achieved bigger economic growth, and Malta needed an academic and professional class to analyse what was happening and make serious criticism while giving its opinion on how affairs should be managed.

Unfortunately, although things were improving, they were doing so too slowly and Malta still remained at the bottom of the list in most parameters of the Lisbon agenda.

Research conducted by the European Commission had found that certain EU directives worked against Malta, and some of them were impossible to apply in certain sectors such as agriculture.

Recommendations in the report included that better care should be taken in the transposition of EU directives to ensure that these did not attempt to achieve more than was needed. The government, Dr Vella said, should take this report seriously.

Dr Vella asked about the administration of EU funds, pointing out that the impression being given by the government that these were unlimited was wrong.

The government, he said, had deceived farmers with the safeguard clause and fishermen were now saying they had also been deceived on a number of issues.

Dr Vella pointed out that although an investment of Lm10 million in the shipyards had been agreed with the EU, not a cent had been passed on to the shipyards in the past three years. Did the government really want the shipyards to remain open?

He said that although, on paper, it was positive that national Parliaments were being given the chance to scrutinise EU legislation before this was debated in Brussels, the scrutiny committee could barely keep up with its current volume of work. More resources were needed for this committee to be able to continue shouldering its responsibilities. Parliament should have more analysts and research assistants. Although this cost money, without such resources control Parliament's sovereignty would be lost.

Dr Vella said that there was no contact between Parliament and the Forum Malta fl-Ewropa, although some of the work of the two were doing, overlapped. This forum should be a Parliamentary structure and at the very least inform the European and Foreign Affairs Committee of its discussions and decisions.

On the constitutional treaty, Dr Vella said the EU was at a crossroads and had to make sure not to paralyse itself. The treaty had been blocked by France and the Netherlands, and at least seven other countries had not yet taken a decision. There were two lines of thought on what should happen next, and Germany had promised decisions during its Presidency of the EU next year. Unfortunately, the Maltese Parliament did not have time to debate the subject. What position was the country taking in debates on the issue?

In the context of the Euro-Med process Dr Vella said Malta should play its natural role of being a geographic bridge between the south and the north of the Mediterranean.

What was Malta's position on Turkey's membership of the EU? Religion should not be involved in such issues.

On Malta's foreign policy, he asked if the time had come for a serious debate in Parliament on Malta's arrangements, position and role in the eventuality of a defence issue.