On February 25, the Parliamentary Immigration Committee arrived at the Ħal Far detention centre to carry out an assessment of irregular immigrants’ living conditions. But the visit was curtailed when a number of migrants caused a riot. Riot police, equipped with shields and batons, were called to restore order, storming the men’s dormitory and firing a number of rubber pellets to quell the trouble. A handful of immigrants were injured.
An inquiry board was set up to consider the causes of the riot and whether excessive force had been used in quelling it. The findings were published on March 14.
What caused the riot? Was excessive force used in quelling it and what lessons should be learnt from this incident?
The cause of the riot was difficult to determine with certainty. Detention centres are like a tinder box, with immigrants crowded together for days at a time with little to occupy them. It takes only a spark to set tempers ablaze. The lesson from this is that preparations for visits by high-powered groups, or the media, must be more carefully controlled beforehand.
Far more importantly, the conditions under which detainees are kept must be radically improved in three ways: so that living accommodation is much better than it is; to allow for less crowded conditions; and to occupy those being detained more gainfully.
The board of inquiry concluded that, on the medical evidence adduced, of the half a dozen or so migrants who were injured, the accusation of excessive force was “unfounded” as “no noteworthy injuries” were sustained.
This may be a simplistic conclusion given that stun guns were used and rubber bullets were fired. “Not proven”, rather than “unfounded”, would probably be more accurate.
The nub of the report, however, is that there is no longer any excuse for Malta not to improve the living and other conditions of irregular immigrants.
It is now 12 years since this phenomenon started. Millions of euros have been contributed by the EU towards Malta’s immigration needs. It is quite clear – as each succeeding report by the EU, the Council of Europe and NGOs attest – that the living conditions under which immigrants are kept are grossly inadequate.
At the height of the migration season, conditions are positively uncivilised. More detention centres are needed and, as the board emphasises, reception facilities dedicated exclusively to newly arrived migrants should be urgently constructed.
Above all, the time spent by immigrants in detention must be reduced. The current average time taken of about six months is too long. The Commissioner for Refugees must be given the resources to reduce the time spent in considering applications. The limit of 18 months’ detention for those whose applications have been refused should be cut by one third or more.
Moreover, there is no reason why detainees – the majority of whom will be given asylum or protected status in Malta – should not be given proper welfare support and training while in detention to fit them for later life in Malta. It is in both the asylum-seekers’ and the country’s interest that this should happen.
While the political and security arguments in favour of retaining a detention policy are, on balance, the right ones, there is no reason why immigrants should be kept in poor living accommodation or for detaining them for long periods of time.
The inadequate arrangements act as the catalyst for trouble in the detention centres and, furthermore, serve to give Malta a bad name internationally.