Opposition spokesman on home affairs Gavin Gulia said it was unjust that the European Union was dragging its feet on a common asylum policy while was issuing directives ordering a country what to do on its own territory. These directives applied only to the first receiving countries, and this was not fair on Malta.
Speaking during the debate on the second reading of the Bill amending the Refugees Act, Dr Gulia claimed the EU did not have a mechanism that was clear, just and equitable where irregular immigrants were concerned.
He said Malta was not alone in experiencing the problem of irregular immigrants. Mass displacements had affected the whole world. The freedom of movement was a Constitutional right, but in the context of the Maltese territory, the authorities had the right to see that there was no disorganisation.
Problems existed within the EU because not all countries had the same geographical size and population density. International procedures which were to be integrated into domestic legislation would inevitably create problems. "One-size-fits-all" laws were the mother of all let-downs, he said.
Dr Gulia called on the EU to delve deeper into Malta's problems caused by irregular immigration. Not all European countries and not all EU member states were affected in the same way as Malta.
Malta and its neighbouring countries, especially Cyprus, Italy, Spain and Greece, were feeling different quasi-permanent effects. The cause of irregular immigration was not only persecution but also due to a new phenomenon: the economic development brought about by globalisation.
Dr Gulia called for more sensitivity on a regional basis. The problem was not to be solved by international legal solutions which were enforced only in those countries which first received the irregular immigrants. The Dublin Treaty also offered a cushion to the EU non-receiving states. Under this treaty, if an irregular immigrant escaped from the receiving EU state and found himself in another EU country, he could be sent back to the country of his first arrival.
He said that he was all in favour for Malta to give its contribution, and he would be the first to condemn xenophobic comments. But the burden must be shared not only by the receiving countries but even with the other EU member states. If EU members believed in solidarity, then they must do more. The EU body-language was such that they did not want to share the burden other than financially. This would leave the problem four-square where it was.
Dr Gulia said that five or six years ago he used to be more critical of the government's actions. But by time he had acknowledged that one must, where humanly possible, help the government because even if Labour had been elected, it would have had to face the same scenario.
The two EU directives applied indiscriminately to all EU member states. But, he asked, what demographical movement was there in Scandinavia? The serious problems lay in the south of Europe.
The opposition justice spokesman said the Bill gave a wider meaning to the word "refugee" than that adopted by the UN Convention on the Status and Treatment of Refugees, which was also reflected in the original local Refugee Act. Because of the EU directives, the meaning was also extended to a "third-country national who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it ..."
Dr Gulia thanked US ambassador Molly Bordonaro for being instrumental in her country taking in a meaningful number of refugees. The US, although not bound by the principles of European solidarity, was leading by example. He did not expect Italy to share the burden; it had enough on its plate. But Spain and Portugal also helped on a voluntary basis.
Turning to the subsidiary protection status, Dr Gulia said that this was a new concept in the irregular immigration legislation. The Refugee Status, which was being extended, was permanent in character. There was also the humane status, which was intended to be only temporary and the protection afforded until such time that the troubles in the country of origin of the irregular immigrant were still prevalent.
The subsidiary protection did not emanate from the UN Convention but was a unilateral measure on a European region basis. While legally it applied to all EU member states, its enforcement was only on those countries which first received the irregular immigrants.
He said the minister had taken on undue political responsibility because it would now fall on him to grant this subsidiary protection. It was a catch-22 situation: he might be criticised for being too lenient or targeted by humanitarian organisations if he seemed to be too heavy-handed.
Dr Gulia said he was not criticising the inclusion of such a protection, and maybe the UN itself could take a leaf out of what the EU was proposing and update its own convention. He declared that he was against, and condemned, racism and xenophobia.
Concluding, Dr Gulia referred to the government-opposition task force that had agreed on a national project on how to tackle irregular immigration. The report, which was never made public, had made a number of recommendations, including turnkey detention centres. He suggested that the task force should be reactivated.