Parliament on Wednesday unanimously gave a second reading to a Good Samaritan law, ironically just days after having backed government actions on migration – which have included the closure of Malta’s harbours to migrant rescue ships.
The Good Samaritan law was moved by the opposition, which explained that it was aimed at offering protection from criminal or civil liability for those who rushed to help people in distress.
The bill was proposed well before the current migration crisis, but the irony of the situation was not lost on some MPs.
Jason Azzopardi (PN) observed that on the same day as this bill was being debated, it had been revealed that the government stopped a migrants spotter plane operated by an NGO from flying from Malta.
The aircraft had been operating for over a year, he said, and the refusal to allow it to perform its life-saving functions was part of a “wave of populism” that sent the worst possible message.
Opposition MP Mario de Marco added that the aircraft in question had saved over a thousand lives in the past.
The issue over the spotter plane was also raised earlier during parliamentary question time. Asked to explain the reasoning for the ban, Transport Minister Ian Borg referred to government statements on the operations of NGOs. He added that the Malta Rescue Centre had not requested humanitarian flights in the area for which it was responsible.
During the debate, government MPs expressed agreement with the principle of the Opposition bill, but argued that more research on the matter was needed and the subject should be discussed within the Social Affairs Committee before the bill became law.
The bill was piloted by Claudio Grech (PN).
He said that the intention behind the bill - which had originally been proposed in September - was to ensure that those who tried to save lives could do so without fear of punishment, “apart from any legalisms.” The Bill would contribute immensely if it managed to save even one life, he said.
Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said the government would vote in favour, but there was the need for a parliamentary process before the Social Affairs Committee which would revisit and overhaul the clauses presented to the House, as they risked “doing more harm than good.”
In response, Opposition MP Therese Comodini Cachia said that there was no time to waste, as those who had to face the risk of emergency situations on an everyday basis - such as teachers at school and doctors outside the confines of their professional duty - needed protection. Offering this protection would reduce indifference towards those in danger without obliging anybody to give aid in situations where they did not feel competent.
Education Minister Evarist Bartolo said that although there was no doubt that such provisions were needed, they needed to be taken seriously. Anybody performing educational functions, he added, were already protected from liability. Responsibility was assumed by the government since it was part of their job to provide assistance where needed. He also called for “Good Samaritan” provisions to be introduced as an independent law, rather than as amendments to the Civil and Criminal Codes.
Opposition MP Claudette Buttigieg questioned the education minister’s claims, pointing out that educators and heads of school at educational institutions attended by her diabetic daughter had not even been willing to take responsibility for storing an emergency injection in the school fridge, let alone for administering this injection when it was needed. It was clear that teachers did not feel sufficiently protected from liability.