'Malta makes no profit from Frontex'

Malta will not lose any money if it withdraws from Frontex missions since no profit is made from such operations, according to a spokesman for the Prime Minister.

In 2008, Malta earned some €1.1 million for its participation in the mission Nautilus III but the spokesman said these were refunds for operational costs and did not constitute financial aid that would now be lost.

In other words, if Malta stops participating in joint missions, it would not need to have any costs refunded.

"It has to be registered that Frontex is not paying for a service on which a profit can be made. It reimburses the operational expenses actually incurred by EU member states for vessels and aircraft that were participating in the Frontex Joint Operation."

The Prime Minister has said Malta would not host Frontex missions under the controversial new guidelines approved by the European Parliament.

These guidelines charge countries responsible for the missions with taking in migrants found on the high seas, instead of having them taken to the nearest safe port. Lawrence Gonzi argues that the new requirement does not make sense.

Since Frontex was set up it has contributed to a variety of operational costs for border patrols and rescue missions, primarily related to expenses such as fuel.

Meanwhile, the UN High Commission for Refugees said that as long as Malta's responsibility to save lives was "carried out effectively", the country's refusal to take part in Frontex would not automatically put immigrants in danger.

Jon Hoisaeter, head of the UNHCR office in Malta, said international law was not clearly defined when it came to the disembarkation of migrants after rescue operations.

"There are situations when urgent health and safety considerations would require that those rescued are brought to the nearest safe port of call. In fact, even the new Frontex guidelines acknowledge this... Asylum seekers should be brought to a territory where their situation and claims can be individually assessed in a fair manner.

"Of course, close cooperation among relevant states will often be crucial to successfully undertake rescue-at-sea operations."

Mr Hoisaeter added that Frontex was primarily a support agency to assist with planning and coordination of border monitoring operations.

"The UNHCR supports the development of guidelines that can facilitate rescue and reduce the risk of lives being lost at sea. However, with or without support from Frontex, search and rescue operations are primarily the responsibility of states."

MEP Simon Busuttil said that even if Malta stopped hosting Frontex missions, its obligation to save lives would not be abandoned.

Dr Gonzi on Friday said Malta would have no problem taking part in missions if there were different rules of engagement which did not place new burdens on Malta - in other words, if the new rules were bypassed under agreement between all participating states. However, Malta has always insisted those rescued should be taken to the nearest safe port of call, especially because it is in the interest of the immigrants themselves.

"The issue is not about whether to save people's lives but where to take the people whose lives we have saved," Dr Busuttil said.

He added that since the new guidelines were not legally binding, the Prime Minister's assertion that they could be bypassed was not unrealistic.

Dr Busuttil said he would not give up trying to come up with "good and fair rules" by stressing the need to go "beyond bickering".

"Our mission has always been to ensure burden-sharing as soon as immigrants land," he said, adding that countries with a disproportionate burden needed help.