Towards the end of his article 'Stand up, Mifsud Bonnicis, listen to the ambassador' (The Sunday Times, July 19), Lino Spiteri refers to the European Commission's "Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection," implying that the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs might have missed a point.

I am sure that Mr Spiteri must have been misled by the unexplained comment of the Swedish ambassador.

The Commission's proposal under the French Presidency sought to extend the provisions of Directive 2003/109/EC applicable to beneficiaries of international protection, i.e. refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. In essence, this meant that to qualify for long-term residence a third country national would, among other things, have to reside in Malta for at least five years.

This is not the appropriate solution for Malta's immediate problems and challenges.

Adherence to this proposal would have translated into the need and incentive for beneficiaries of international protection to remain in this country for five years before being able to move on. This is not the appropriate response to the challenges posed by the Maltese scenario, in contrast to what we are getting through the pilot project to resettle persons with refugee or subsidiary protection from Malta to other countries in the EU as approved during the European Council of June 19 and on which work is in progress.

In the course of negotiations over the Commission's proposal, Malta had counter-proposed that this free movement from the first member states should be accorded to beneficiaries of international protection after one year, rather than five, so that the beneficiary of international protection concerned would have the possibility of accumulating the five-year period which makes him or her eligible for long-term residence in more than one member state and not necessarily in the first member state.

The adoption of the Maltese counter-proposal would have benefited states like ours that are exposed to disproportionate pressures from illegal immigration. This, however, this was not taken on board.

Therefore, Malta was not out to drop the proposal, but rather sought to amend it in such a way as to offer a real solution for Malta and the beneficiaries of international protection in Malta.