Opposition spokesman on home affairs and security Michael Falzon told Parliament on Tuesday that the number of illegal immigrants in Malta at present was one and one half times the total number of the personnel enlisted in the security forces - the police, the armed forces and civil protection. This was a unique situation for an EU country, he said.

Speaking during the discussion in illegal immigration, Dr Falzon said that the 5,200 illegal immigrants in Malta amounted to 1.7 per cent of the population. The number of illegal immigrants in detention centres often exceeded the number of residents in certain villages. There were 24 immigrants entering Malta illegally in 2000. This had now increased to 2,775 arriving in 2008.

Dr Falzon said that if the trend of the arrival of illegal immigrants during the first two months of 2009 continues Malta would be facing a crisis in the summer. He asked whether the government had a contingency plan for such an eventuality.

Through its proposals the opposition was supporting the government. It agreed with the 18-month detention in the national interest.

However, immigrants in detention centres had to live in acceptable living conditions as befitted human dignity. All NGOs had insisted that an admissions policy was lacking or ineffective.

The detention centres had to be run in an organised and disciplined manner with security personnel, who had a difficult job, given incentives. Open centres should not be a "no-go zone" as long as havoc is not created outside. There was the need of a system of reporting to Parliament on detention and of appointing a parliamentary committee.

Dr Falzon again insisted on the appointment of a person responsible for all matters dealing with illegal immigration. Special allocations had to be made to the Birżebbuġa, Safi, Kirkop, Pietà and Marsa local councils to help them deal with issues relating to illegal immigration.

In dealing with illegal immigration the government had to be vigilant not to give contracts where workers - often illegal immigrants - were exploited. A well organised hospital appointment system had to be set up so that queues waiting in hospitals would be observed by everyone including immigrants.

The opposition always defended the government on illegal immigration in international fora. But one had to move from words to action, translating the Immigration and Asylum Pact into action. Burden sharing was not enough if it remained on a voluntary basis. Only France had agreed to take 80 immigrants and made its choices.

Dr Falzon repeated most of the proposals put forward last Monday by Opposition leader Joseph Muscat, including the suspension by government of its participation in the asylum pact, the revision of the Dublin II agreement, particularly on the state of entry and the upgrading of the Frontex operation.

He insisted the Maltese were not second-class citizens in the EU.

Turning to Libya, Dr Falzon said that Malta needed to work harder to arrive at an agreement similar to the one signed between Spain and Senegal. Talks had to focus also on stopping criminal activity in Libya. Nothing hindered Malta from taking a position regarding its international obligations as advocated by Foreign Minister Tonio Borg in a report carried in a report in the Financial Times of August 10, 2005, even if suspending its international obligations would be a last resort. The opposition would support such a stand, declared Dr Falzon.

Earlier, former Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said it was important that parliament sent out one unified message that it was committed to addressing the problem.

Although he understood the spirit behind the opposition proposing using power of veto, he believed there were other ways of succeeding in getting what Malta needed.

As Labour MP George Vella had pointed out during a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot, Malta was not a gateway to the EU but the door of one house.

The problem was the criminal exploitation of people from poor under-developed countries. When the Libya-Italy agreement was signed Minister Tonio Borg had reacted by offering Malta's help, where possible. It was important that the EU fought organised human trafficking, as pointed out to Mr Barrot. The fight had to be taken on, on a global level, to protect real refugees.

The reason they had suggested Frontex operate routes around the centre of the Mediterranean was to send out a message that the region was taking a stand against organised crime. It was no soft route. It was important that proposals put forward by Malta, such as those for burden-sharing between EU countries, were acted upon.

If a country could relieve another country of immigrants, UNHCR should look into alleviating Malta's burden.

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (PN) said if the solution to Malta's problem lay in its membership of the EU, which should help resolve the current conflicts in Africa and assist African countries to boost their economies.

The EU should also organise legal immigration schemes because it was said that the larger EU member countries could absorb a number of immigrants. It should also push more against illegal immigration, because Malta was not alone in facing the phenomenon of traffickers.

With the help of the EU the UN too must help Libya with its problems to counter illegal migration by increasing its presence there. The EU should move from pacts to facts and if Libya was not prepared to cooperate, the EU must consider stopping some forms of aid to that country.

Malta must start to use its political force in the EU. It could not continue to participate in the criminality against people who spent years in Libya to pay for their trip to Europe. If the EU did not stand firm on illegal immigration, and soon, this would be to its shame.

Charlò Bonnici (PN) said the EU had to help Sudan and Somalia and attack the criminal organisations which were exploiting the immigrants. The EU had to be more assertive with Libya so that collaboration could be increased. Frontex was a step in the right direction but it needed to make a stronger commitment so that boats would not arrive in European ports. This could be done with more investment.

The Police Corps and the Armed Forces were facing more pressure and the EU should give more support to Malta.

Mr Bonnici said there was also a lot of pressure on detention centres. There were some newspapers correspondents who were sowing xenophobia and racism. Solutions were not simple. While controlling the problem, one had to respect international law and the belief that Malta was kind to everyone.

Mr Bonnici called for a review of the Dublin II regulations and augured that more financial help would be forthcoming from the EU.

Franco Debono (PN) emphasised that the problem had to be dealt with in a humanistic manner. Agencies which dealt with immigration should have more resources to speed up the process.

The immigration pact was a step in the right direction, and it was important to keep working on its implementation. Under the Dublin II regulations Malta had duties it could not abdicate from. But Malta could put pressure to change these regulations.