In the aftermath of the Valletta Summit on migration Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela speaks to Kurt Sansone about the outcome and answers questions on the rumoured Malta-Italy oil-for-migrants pact.

Are you confident the summit will lead to concrete results?

I hope so. I am satisfied because we not only had a joint declaration but agreed on an action plan that includes timeframes. The crux of it all is whether we – the Europeans and Africans – get down to implementing the measures.

How difficult is it to implement agreed actions when within the EU there is divergence on how the migrant crisis should be tackled?

From one EU meeting to another that I have attended this year for home affairs ministers, I can say we were further apart six months ago. After the September decision to accept migrant relocations across the EU, there seems to have been greater acceptance of the idea even from those countries that voted against. But there are differing views that also depend on the internal political situation in each of the member states. Elections, coalition governments, especially those made up of parties that have different ideals, are also determining factors.

The relocation mechanism has not produced the desired results. European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker said that at the current rate it would take almost 100 years to relocate the agreed number of migrants.

We are moving too slow on this.

What is the problem?

At the last home affairs ministers’ council nothing was decided but we acknowledged things were moving too slowly. The political will still appears to be there because no one has withdrawn support. But this is a relatively new idea and we are passing through a learning curve. We need to understand how this programme is working on the ground.

How does a country that has received migrants through the relocation programme ensure they remain in the country and not travel to neighbouring states as a result of the Schengen rules?

The discussion on this aspect is still in its infancy. EU home affairs ministers had agreed on relocation after immigrants are processed in the country they arrive in. But migrants have no choice on the country they are to be transferred to. As things stand we have to revisit the Schengen rules and the Dublin II rules [that stipulate the country of first entry will remain responsible for asylum seekers]. The rules agreed in other times have to be revisited as a result of the migration crisis today.

The Italians asked for nothing and we gave them nothing in return

This discussion on Schengen should have been held before adopting the relocation mechanism.

Things always become clearer when they are put into practice. It is not always easy to foresee difficulties that may arise. We are talking of an influx of thousands of mostly-Syrian migrants that developed in a matter of weeks. When migration was under control, the Dublin II rules made sense but they are now under the spotlight because of the sheer scale of the phenomenon.

But some EU countries are taking unilateral decisions on border controls. What is going to happen with Schengen?

This is a reality and it means that the slow discussion process has to speed up to avoid having countries taking unilateral decisions.

The Valletta Summit was held at a time when migrant arrivals by boat in Malta dropped to almost zero because Italy has been taking in all rescued people. Speculation is rife that Malta and Italy have struck some form of deal. What is Malta giving the Italians in return for this favour?

There is no agreement whatsoever. I categorically deny this. There is better coordination within the parameters of international law and according to the operational plan. Malta, Italy and Frontex coordinate rescues and disembarkation is decided according to the operational plan. It must be noted that when the migration phenomenon started we used to find small boats that would have arrived right up to our shores. By time, the affair became more organised to the point that migrants started using phones to communicate with rescue centres while they were still out at sea.

Malta and Italy used to haggle over where migrants should disembark. Why are the Italians so accommodating now?

They asked for nothing and we have given them nothing in return. There is no agreement with the Italians, as has been implied, on matters that have nothing to do with migration.

What about oil exploration rights?

Absolutely not. The talks on oil exploration between both sides – Malta and Italy have conflicting claims in certain areas – are still ongoing.

Is there an agreement on the flight information region [this is the airspace controlled by Malta which covers a large span over the central Mediterranean] from which we earn money?

Not at all.

Does Malta control the flight information region?

Without any shadow of a doubt.

Is it possible that this level of coordination is only the result of two prime ministers [Joseph Muscat and Matteo Renzi] who happen to have a good relationship?

Whereas before the conflicts were trying to be solved at an operational level, today international law is being applied in line with an operational plan. There is nothing that is not above aboard. There is better coordination.

Security for the Valletta Summit was stepped up and included assistance from the British. Was there a terrorist threat?

There was no particular security threat. The government’s request for British assistance was the same as 10 years ago when the Commonwealth summit was held here. The request was linked to CHOGM but when the Valletta Summit came about the British accepted to extend assistance.

The assistance was the same as 10 years ago with the only difference being the presence of the warship in Grand Harbour. However, one must appreciate the global situation has changed since 2005 and the ship’s presence in port was a precautionary measure. But all security on the ground and at sea was handled by the Maltese police and army.

* The interview was held just before the Paris terrorist attacks.