The House of Representatives yesterday started debating the second reading of a Bill that would bring into force two EU directives on the minimum standards for the qualification and status of refugees who need international protection because of the abnormal situation in their countries of origin.
Introducing the Bill, Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said that in past years Malta had seen a surge in the number of irregular immigrants seeking asylum. The original Act had made it possible for the government to address situations which had resulted, but now the government was fine-tuning the legislation on an international level. It was important that EU member states streamlined the procedure to be adopted.
During the last legislature, there were a number of irregular immigrants who qualified for refugee, subsidiary or humane status and Malta gave them protection. Malta had also found solidarity from other countries in taking some of these refugees.
The subject was most sensitive, he said. Fortunately, there existed political consensus and no one doubted that people who were persecuted because of creed or colour should be given protection.
Before the Refugees Act was enacted, Malta had to depend on the UNHCR and the Emigrants' Commission to deal with irregular immigrants. Now the number had increased and the situation had changed. One must acknowledge that most of the irregular immigrants faced interminable hardships and probably paid all they had to escape from their countries of origin. Such persons could not be expelled from Malta.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that the Bill provided for a different section for those under refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Their status was different from that of refugees but nonetheless, they could not be sent back to their countries of origin because their lives would be put at risk.
However, the minister would be empowered to revoke or refuse to renew the protection granted to refugees when there were reasonable grounds for regarding them as a danger to the security of Malta.
Subsidiary protection would cease if the minister was satisfied that the circumstances which would have led to the granting of such protection would have ceased to exist, or changed to such a degree that protection was no longer required.
The minister said that an appeal would implicitly be deemed to have been withdrawn if the applicant failed to provide information essential to his appeal, or if he left his place of abode without informing the authorities within a reasonable time.
A person whose application for protection had been refused could re-apply if there were new circumstances which the applicant could not have known about at the time of his appeal.
Irregular immigrants who did not qualify for refugee status when they landed here could qualify if, at a later stage, developments ensued in their countries of origin which would qualify them for consideration.
The Bill also contemplates different procedures if the Commissioner for Refugees deems an application unfounded. This changes the present scenario where the first interview is made by the immigration officer.
A number of conditions would make the application inadmissible.
Concluding, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that the amendments were not just cosmetic but important factors for the day-to-day running of the office of the Commissioner for Refugees.