EU money where our mouth is

The EU has four dedicated funding programmes to support its common immigration policy. The first fund seeks to strengthen the external borders of EU countries. It is called the External Borders Fund. Malta already benefits from a staggering €112 million from this fund.

The second helps member states deal with immigrants who qualify for international protection and is known as the European Refugees Fund.

The third one supports member states in initiatives intended to integrate migrants. This is the European Integration Fund.

The fourth - the European Return Fund - provides financial support for the return of immigrants who are illegally staying in the EU territory.

Separately, the EU also allocated funding for the operation of its external borders agency, Frontex.

Last month, the European Parliament voted to adopt the EU's Budget for this year. On my initiative, we amended the Budget to increase the financial allocation for two of these funds and for Frontex.

My first amendment concerned the European Refugee Fund, which covers a variety of initiatives dealing with immigration who seek asylum and qualify for international protection.

It is this fund that provides financial support for the ongoing pilot project for migrants who qualify for protection and leave Malta to be relocated in other EU countries. Under this project, launched last July, EU countries may benefit from a financial support of up to €4,000 in EU funding for each migrant they agree to host from Malta.

My amendment brought about an increase of €10 million to this fund, bringing the total budget for this year to €92.25 million. This increase was specifically earmarked to provide further financial support for the pilot project, thereby increasing the financial resources available for relocation. With this money, there are now enough resources to fund up to 2,500 relocations.

My second amendment concerned the European Return Fund, which provides financial support to improve the management of return operations of immigrants who are illegally staying in the EU. My amendment brought an increase of €5 million to this fund, leading to a total allocation of €87.5 million in this area.

This amendment also called for the organisation of information campaigns in countries of origin and of transit so that potential migrants are adequately informed on the conditions and prerequisites for the reception of refugees, displaced persons and asylum applicants in Europe as well as on the consequences of illegal migration.

The amendment also called for priority to be given to voluntary returns.

In Malta, we have a positive experience with voluntary returns whereby illegal migrants are provided with financial support if they agree to return to their country of origin on a voluntary basis to start a new life back home. An encouraging number of illegal-staying migrants have already agreed to return under this scheme operated successfully by the Maltese government. The option of voluntary return is preferable to - and, probably, more cost-effective than - forced returns, which also entail very high costs in terms of security officers who must accompany the deportees.

Voluntary returns are eligible for EU funding under the Return Fund and my amendment sought to ensure that more funding is made available for this purpose.

My third amendment brought about an increase of €5 million in commitments to the operational budget of the Frontex agency, bringing its total to almost €60 million. The operational budget is devoted to Frontex missions and is separate for the administrative funding required for running the agency.

The aim of my amendment was to increase the assistance the agency provides to member states in the management of their external borders, including in the coordination of joint return operations undertaken by a group of EU countries.

I am, of course, aware that the effectiveness of this agency has been legitimately questioned in more than one country. Its mandate is expected to come up for review soon and I will not miss this opportunity to insist that the agency's terms of reference must be revised to ensure that its effectiveness is improved.

The EU's four funds that are available in the area of immigration are relatively new funds, having started functioning just a couple of years ago. This means we are not yet in a position to state how they have been used and how effective they have been.

However, I have already flagged this issue in the context of the discharge of the EU's 2008 Budget and I will see to it that a yearly debate is held on how these funds are used and their cost-effectiveness.

On immigration, the European Parliament is making sure that the European Union puts its money where its mouth is. And that it uses its money well.

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.

www.simonbusuttil.eu