The first arrival of migrants this year caused an uproar of a different nature to what we were used to. Several organisations poured scorn on the fact that only about half the migrants saved at sea were brought to Malta. The other half were taken on board a Libyan patrol boat that participated in the rescue operation.

Some charged that Malta breached international law because Libya is not a safe place since it has not signed the Geneva Refugees Convention and conditions in its detention centres are bad.

I fully understand the position of these organisations because it is their job to stand up for migrants, especially those seeking international protection. But this is not to say that the Maltese government, or even our maritime squadron, acted improperly.

Over the past years, I have consistently adopted a moderate line on immigration and received my fair share of opprobrium from hard-liners. But on this case I stand with the government.

Before explaining why, let me bring some information to your attention.

A few days ago, a debate was held in the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee on the plight of a group of Eritreans in Libya. It was alleged that some of them had been repelled by Italy under its agreement with Libya. The new Director General of the European Commission's Home Affairs Department, Stefano Manservisi, was summoned to reply to MEPs. He made a number of compelling points.

On the Eritreans, he announced that Libya had agreed not to repatriate them to their country of origin.

On Libya, he said that although it is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, it is nevertheless a signatory to the 1969 Addis Ababa Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. This binds Libya with substantially the same principles as the Geneva Convention, including cooperation with UNHCR.

On bilateral agreements, such as that between Italy and Libya, he said that the Commission prefers European agreements. However, he conceded that the Italo-Libyan agreement had proved to be effective because illegal migration to Europe, via Italy, had been stopped. Moreover, the Commission had been notified with the agreement and had found it to be "perfectly in conformity with EU law".

His words not mine.

Let me now explain why I support the government's stand on the recent incident involving Malta.

First, the idea that Libya has no obligation to respect the rights of potential asylum seekers is clearly debunked because it has signed up to these obligations. Whether it actually does so is another matter. But, frankly, that suspicion can be raised on some European countries too.

Second, many migrants who cross to Europe had lived and worked in Libya safely enough for months, if not years, to earn the money to pay for their illegal trip. This point is ignored by those who claim that Libya is not safe.

Third, I personally visited the Tripoli detention centre twice as part of European Parliament missions. On both occasions, we spoke at length to different detainees without the presence of Libyan security personnel. Having seen the conditions in some other countries, including Malta, I am in no position to condemn Libya.

Fourth, it is reasonable to expect that, in the difficult context of a life-saving rescue operation on the high seas, the migrants should have been shared among the two patrol boats participating in the rescue, more so if lives could have been compromised. And if you are saving someone from a sinking dinghy, it is not like you have the luxury of asking him where would he like to go. You just save him. It follows from the above that the claims that Libya is not safe or that Malta breached international law are highly dubious.

Fifth, a European agreement with Libya is certainly preferable. I have long insisted for that in Brussels. But we do not have one yet and, until we do, bilateral agreements and ad hoc practical arrangements must be an acceptable second option.

For there is no doubt that bilateral agreements have, so far, proved to be the single most effective instrument in stemming illegal immigration, in combating the criminal networks behind it and in preventing further loss of lives at sea. These three achievements are significant and it would be irresponsible to relinquish them.

There is one final point that I stressed during the debate in Parliament.

It is all too easy to condemn and to play the moral card. But there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in those who do so at the international level. For they have no reply when we ask them who is going to shoulder the responsibility.

Malta's policy on immigration might not be perfect (I will return to this next week). But it should not allow itself to be pressured by criticism that is hypocritical at best and demagogic at worst.

Next week: Now what?

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.

www.simonbusuttil.eu