Mifsud Bonnici on mutual recognition of EU decisions

Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament on Monday that never in the history of the EU had there been such a document laying down that a judicial decision by an EU member state must be recognised and implemented by fellow member states.

He was winding up the debate on the Immigration Act (Amendment) Bill, which implements the provisions of a 2001 EU directive on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that the pilot project had been set going within just six months of the creation of the Solidarity Pact, and the future would show how wrong the opposition was when it had so strongly criticised this pact. It had not prepared its reactions adequately.

Both sides of the House were in agreement that the Bill further facilitated and strengthened the upholding of Malta's sovereignty. This put paid to certain quarters' diffidence about what EU accession would have done to such sovereignty.

This was another way in which Malta had gained additional benefits from EU accession. It meant the automatic recognition of any Maltese judicial decision on such sensitive aspects of whom not to allow in the land. It also solidified intra-Union solidarity, following the signing of the Asylum Pact, to the point of shortly having a Commissioner specifically for such aspects.

This did not mean that Malta had never put its foot down, especially on burden-sharing. He himself had done just this at his recent meeting with Jacques Barrot and Roberto Maroni.

Illegal immigration was not easy to handle. Mr Barrot himself had been back in Malta very recently and they had again discussed the issue and Malta's burden. Even the US intake of hundreds of immigrants had come about as a result of Malta's diplomatic efforts. Burden-sharing with Malta was not simply a question of reducing the number of illegal immigrants in Malta. Any government which accepted to take such immigrants must prepare for them good educational and living facilities.

Thankfully the opposition seemed to have seen the light on this in recent pronouncements.

A recent document by Eric Besson on the creation of a refugee passport was also giving Malta added strength in its endeavours for burden-sharing. Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he would be going to Paris to meet Mr Besson for further progress on the issue, which was still beset by problems.(The two ministers met on Tuesday.) The head of Frontex, too, had visited Malta recently and talked about his wishes to further strengthen the organisation.

The government was continually seeking to send a strong message to would-be illegal immigrants that protection would be afforded to those who deserved it, but others would only be helped to repatriate. There was simply no truth in local elements which held that illegal immigration had increased only because of Malta's EU accession, or that the EU imposed on Malta a position of weakness. Indeed, Malta's position internationally had been and was still being strengthened.

If Malta managed to further strengthen Frontex and make it take ownership of illegal immigrants who had no right to refugee status or protection it would be a huge step forward for the EU to build up a roadmap for real progress. True refugees deserved to be the object of Malta's mission to give them a decent future through the EU.

This would be a big step not only for Malta but for all of Europe, Minister Mifsud Bonnici concluded.

Earlier, David Agius (PN) said that several people left their country to seek asylum but in the process, some died while others were exploited. Every state needed to understand its obligations. Countries such as Malta and Cyprus needed assistance because illegal immigration was creating enormous pressure. Mr Agius said that looking at third-world countries, one would immediately understand these people's situation: while Europe developed, their countries lagged behind and therefore they tried to seek asylum in Europe.

As a country, Malta should bring the issue of illegal immigration to the top of the agenda, similar to what had happened in the Commonwealth Conference. As a result, the executive would discuss what measures the Commonwealth could take to help, because even if Commonwealth countries accepted to take a few illegal immigrants, it would be a start.

Mr Agius said that so long as the state kept being realistic, people understood that there was someone who understood and tackled the situation.

Ċensu Galea (PN) said he knew of several cases of people who had come from countries widely regarded as the source of illegal immigration but who had settled down in Malta and set up respectable families and were making a decent living. It was true that some others had been mixed up in dubious activities that made them the focus of attention of the Maltese. It was important that when a relationship with such migrants broke up their reaction should not degenerate into unsavoury incidents.

There were also particular localities where the pronounced presence of foreigners was giving rise to certain circumstances. Quite apart from illegal immigration, the Bill under debate concerned the treatment of non-EU citizens who found themselves at odds with local legislation and were condemned to more than one year's incarceration.

What exactly was meant by "committed serious criminal action"? This should be spelt out for the sake of clarity. How could anyone interpret a person's intentions until that person had committed the serious criminal act?

A decision for deportation should also be based on international legislation. Any or all illegal immigrants could be dubbed so because they would not have observed a country's rules of entry.

Mr Galea said it was important to note that the family of a non-EU immigrant who broke the law was not meant to bear the brunt of his actions or of his subsequent deportation. This might be hard for some to swallow, but it was only fair that the spouse or offspring of a criminal should not be made to pay for his or her misdeeds. Malta, among others, was well noted for its humanity and its positive outlook on such circumstances.

The Bill was unanimously carried through the second reading and passed to the Standing Committee for the Consideration of Bills.