Foreign Minister Tonio Borg yesterday defended the way Malta was tackling irregular immigration, saying that it was better for EU member states to share the burden with Malta and encourage legal migration to ease the pressure on receiving countries.

Speaking during the debate on the second reading of the Refugees Act (Amendment) Bill, Dr Borg said irregular immigrants risked their lives twice, crossing both the desert and the sea. Once they arrived in Malta they would do their utmost to get to mainland Europe. And it had been found that only one in four remained there. If need be, they just walked hundreds of kilometres to arrive in some other country in the hope of a better life.

The main difference between the present legislation and the Bill amending it was the definition of the status of a refugee. Those who were eligible for humanitarian protection now had practically the same rights as a refugee.

A refugee was discriminated against because of his political beliefs and could not be sent back to his country of origin because of persecution. Neither could those who must be given subsidiary protection be sent back because of fears of prevailing conditions.

Dr Borg said that Malta had received some 1,700 irregular immigrants in 2003. These had decreased slightly in 2004 but, since then, they had stabilised to around 1,500. The majority of these irregular immigrants did not want to land in Malta but were forced to do so because of extraneous circumstances.

Referring to burden sharing, Dr Borg said that Malta had already been given some assistance. There had been times when the EU did not give the problem much attention, not seeing it as a pan-European one. Malta had insisted in the Council of Ministers on burden sharing and help had started flowing in. Malta was now receiving €2 million for projects like the centre at Ta' Kandja. The Frontex surveillance was also subsidised by the EU.

He admitted there was still a long way to go. Admittedly, the issue was not as simple as some opposition speakers had given the impression. All EU members were sovereign states and Europe did not have a common policy.

Malta was continuously insisting that, at least, when some irregular immigrants were saved outside Malta's search and rescue area, it would receive help. Malta should not have the responsibility to take such immigrants. If this principle was not applied, it could well be that the country would not take part in Frontex for fear of having to take irregular immigrants saved outside its SARs.

Dr Borg said that he had been at a meeting of seven EU foreign ministers and they had arrived at a draft agreement which reflected Malta's needs and aspirations, attaching importance to repatriation once the irregular immigrant's application for asylum was rejected. But here again, it was not a simple solution because even more influential countries like the UK were finding it difficult to repatriate irregular immigrants.

There was also the problem that some countries simply did not even want to take back their own citizens, or else made it very difficult for these to get the necessary travel documents. In view of this, Dr Borg said, there should be a clause that these countries should take back their own citizens travelling on a European travel document. The problem was not finding an airline to ferry them across; the issue must be addressed in different ways.

Dr Borg said that if burden sharing did not come from Europe, it would come from somewhere else.

He said he had discussed migration with Italy in the context of an agreement reached between Libya and Italy last year on patrols in Libyan waters. The agreement, which had not yet come into force, provided for Italy to lend six patrol boats to the Libyan government. During training or the non-operational part, the crews would be made up of an equal number of Italian and Libyan officials. But during surveillance and when the boats were in Libya's territorial waters, these would be manned solely by Libyans.

Dr Borg augured that this agreement was implemented. But difficulties had arisen. Libya had pointed out that the promised assistance for it to control irregular immigration into its own territory had not yet been forthcoming.

He said Malta had expressed an interest in the agreement and invited the Libyan and Italian foreign ministers to possibly meet in Malta to discuss irregular migration.

Referring to Leo Brincat's comments on the link between irregular immigrants and terrorism, Dr Borg said he did not see such a link. He had said that until now there was nothing to prove this. A terrorist intent on landing in any European country had easier means to do so than risking his life on a boat.

The minister also pointed out that until now there had been no increase in criminality from illegal immigrants in Malta. The risk, however, lay in the future, if these people were not integrated into Maltese society. They could well end up living in a ghetto if their living conditions were not decent. And it was in such circumstances that a terrorist mentality could emanate.

Dr Borg said that it was not right to criminalise irregular immigrants. These were desperate people, including expectant mothers and children, undertaking a perilous journey to find a better life. If irregular immigrants were criminalised, one would be playing into the hands of the far-right parties who want to create xenophobia. And the opposition did not harbour such feelings.

Dr Borg appreciated the opposition's support in its position regarding irregular immigrants saved outside its SAR. Malta had enough responsibilities and could not shoulder further burdens. Otherwise it would end up as the frontier guard of the whole of Europe.

During his 10 years as Home Affairs Minister, much had been done to address the issue. Admittedly there was still more to be done, but one should be realistic. Malta could not accept a yearly intake of irregular immigrants which was half the number of its live birth rate. Malta had its own limitations, even if more money was being invested in the detention centres.

Concluding, Dr Borg said the United States was helping Malta in taking in immigrants. This was not in return for the land on which they would build their new embassy but because it was the American tradition that they welcomed UNHCR-sanctioned immigrants. It was true that this was a laborious process, but he was sure that the group going to the US would, in future, increase from 50 to 100. Malta had the US ambassador's pledge of greater support.

Continuing from where he left off yesterday, Leo Brincat (MLP) said that one could see from the US government's website that there was increasing concern by the Maltese government that home-grown radicalisation could be growing at detention centres.

He pointed out that Professor Henry Frendo, who had been resident representative of the UNHCR in Africa and Asia, had asked in a study when the EU was to start sharing the burden. He had also complained that the EU states were dragging their feet on sharing the search and rescue burden. Mr Brincat said he agreed with Prof. Frendo's assessment that the Maltese input was positively disproportionate considering Malta's resources.

Mr Brincat insisted that a line had to be drawn between genuine cases and others that were not. Except for the Americans and some other minor European countries, who had accepted to share part of Malta's burden, it was only Egypt that had accepted the repatriation of Egyptian irregular immigrants. There were very few Egyptians who ended up in Malta illegally.

He said he agreed with the government's decision to implement measures recommended by Martin Scicluna, security adviser to the Prime Minister. But it was baffling to sometimes see people, who were supposed to be dying of hunger, spending a lot of time in expensive long-distance calls on their mobile or satellite phones.

Although Malta should be committed to observing international obligations it should not, through its passiveness, contribute for the country to be changed into a trafficking centre of the Mediterranean. Now was the right time to take concrete action.

Mr Brincat asked the government for its reaction on the proposal for a coordinated curbing on illegal migration to the EU. He pointed out that one should also ask what Europe was doing for Africa. It was of utmost importance to monitor commitments made by the EU and G8 countries regarding development aid policies, for example.

If progress in the sector remained slow, it would be very difficult to meet targets. According to OECD statistics, European assistance had dropped drastically last year. This was worrying even because of the negative humanitarian impact it might have.

Labour MP Justyne Caruana pointed out that Malta could not continue shouldering the burden of illegal migration on its own. In accepting such a large number of illegal immigrants Malta was doing more than its share. Other countries' sympathy and promises were of no practical help. Malta, she said, needed countries to actually help share the burden. On the other hand, Malta had to analyse all requests and those who qualified would be given refugee status as soon as possible.

She asked whether there was any authority or organisation that ensured that these people were not exploited. She called for gender-friendly guidelines to be followed when applications for refugee status were received from women. Maltese officials sometimes referred to foreign guidelines, but Malta should draw up its own guidelines which reflected its needs.

Dr Caruana said that, in many countries, women were still subject to inhuman and degrading treatment, such as mutilation of genitalia and sterilisation. Although the Bill considered these as matters which amounted to persecution, women found it difficult to expose their cases because local procedures were not gender-friendly enough. Trained people were needed to interview women because it was not easy for them to speak about abuse.

She also proposed that as soon as female illegal immigrants arrived in Malta, they should be met by women officers who should inform them of their rights and that, if they had a case, they could apply for refugee status on their own rather than with their husbands.

When a woman's request was together with that of the husband's, she was only asked to strengthen the husband's case. If this was not strong enough, both applications would be refused.

It was essential, therefore, that women who had grounds for a request were given every opportunity to lodge it. Women would also feel more comfortable explaining what they had gone through if they were interviewed by a female interviewer. Expert assistance should be given to those who needed it, and those who qualified should be granted refugee status.

Frederick Azzopardi (PN) said the fear of the advent of huge numbers of workers coming into Malta from Europe a few years ago had now been overtaken by worries about the increasing influx of irregular immigrants from the south.

The UNHCR said that there were 20 million refugees in the world today. It was hard for the Maltese, who lived in a country where democracy reigned supreme and human rights were respected, to understand the plight of refugees.

The phenomenon of irregular immigrants, largely from northern African countries, had increased considerably over the last five years, but there was no single or easy solution to the problem. It was difficult to decide how to fight irregular immigration while protecting the human rights of individuals who felt they could no longer live in their countries of origin.

For several years Malta had been an active member of the United Nations and the OSCE, signing and ratifying several relative conventions, treaties and other documents.

It was always looking out for ways to maximise the benefits available from membership of such organisations and treaties, but also taking an active part in those organisations' development, within the terms dictated by its available resources.

Mr Azzopardi said that at the same time Malta must safeguard its internal security and labour market, among other factors, even though people given the status of refugees or humanitarian protection were automatically granted the right to stay on and work in Malta. But anyone abusing of Maltese hospitality must be treated accordingly. It must also be firm in repatriating irregular immigrants who could not be accorded refugee status.

It was a conservative estimate that around 6,000 would-be immigrants perished in the Mediterranean every summer, a tragedy that had no parallels anywhere in the world. The problem was one of European, not just Maltese, dimensions, and the island was being expected to single-handedly shoulder a burden that in comparison to its small population was of gigantic proportions.

Nationalist MP Stephen Spiteri said immigration was having repercussions on both the country and immigrants. This was a tragedy of people who were being constrained to leave their country because of persecution and human tragedies, weak economies and natural disasters, among others. They were people seeking a better and more stable future.

Dr Spiteri said there were indications that illegal migration was growing and putting the island in a difficult situation.

Malta offered protection to those who genuinely needed it. Percentage-wise, it was one of the countries which gave the most assistance. But it was also important to acknowledge the impact this phenomenon was having on the country's social fabric, national security and public order.

The Bill tangibly created a balance between giving these persons more rights and safeguarding the security of Maltese nationals. This was important and a right for Maltese nationals and should be a priority. Although the Refugee Act was relatively new, it was still being updated and indicated how fluid the sector was. It was changing daily, with all European countries facing problems.

The Bill was sending the message that Malta was safeguarding the human rights of those who deserved protection. He thanked the European states and the US which were helping Malta by taking refugees.

Dr Spiteri said that the changes would help create more balance between human rights and security. The minister would have the power to change the legal notice according to prevailing circumstances. It would also assist the Refugee Commissioner in his work and ensure that people being repatriated would not be persecuted on their return home.

People who deserved protection, he said, should get it as soon as possible because uncertainty led to more uncertainty and mental stress and added to the trauma these people had gone through. In many cases, these people would have spent all their savings to go on a dangerous journey which could be fatal, in search of a better life. So they should be offered protection and help as soon as they arrived in Malta.

The government was confident the Bill would help identify who needed the most protection, and provide guidelines on what should be done when cases were not genuine. Concluding, Dr Spiteri lauded the many NGOs and Maltese people who were lending a helping hand to the irregular immigrants. Franco Debono (PN) said people moved from one place to another not only in the Mediterranean but all over the world, but Malta's geographical position had placed it in the centre of irregular migration. It was heartening to note that both sides of the House were in favour of the Bill as it was being presented, in favour of people with very real problems.

The Bill, incorporating into Maltese law an EU directive, was set to achieve a balance between the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of national interests such as security. The directive laid down the minimum standards for the status of refugee or subsidiary protection allocated to people with genuine need of protection.

Dr Debono said the situation was changing almost daily, and the Bill gave the minister the power to update conditions accordingly. The procedural aspect was also interesting, and the state must be fair but firm with all those who resorted to delaying practices in their applications for refugee status.

All these were important amendments to ensure that nobody abused the system and wasted the authorities' time, especially through an accelerated procedure where it was obvious that the application was unfounded.

The Bill also proposed ways in which the status of a refugee could be derogated and the applicant expelled from the island if it was deemed that he could constitute a security threat.

Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said that one had to find the balance between giving all the required humanitarian protection when it was deserved and protecting public order and ensuring that what was being done was done in a genuine and serious manner.

As much as it was important for the country to provide the required humanitarian assistance to people who would have risked everything, including their own and their families' lives in search of a basic fundamental human life where they would not be persecuted for no just reason, there also had to be measures with which to ensure that a person applying for refugee status really deserved it.

The Bill kept this delicate balance, not in an arbitrary manner by the state but through procedures of appeal that were transparent and serious. Dr Zammit Dimech said that the term "refugee" referred to a citizen of another country who, because of fear based on reality, was persecuted because of a number of reasons. A refugee could also be a stateless person.

When a person seeking refugee status had more than one citizenship, he had to be persecuted in all the countries where he was citizen before seeking refugee status in another country.

Not every accusation of persecution was a good-enough excuse for one to apply for refugee status. There had to be circumstances which affected the individual applying in a grievous manner.

When someone was not recognised as a refugee and appealed, if essential information was not provided because of the person's fault the appeal would be considered withdrawn implicitly. One whose status was refused was also being given the opportunity to submit a subsequent application in case of a change of circumstances or if he could provide proof which could not have been provided before.

A refugee status would be withdrawn if circumstances changed. It could also be revoked by the minister for several reasons, including if false information would have been given or if the person applying for status would have conducted a crime against humanity.