Opposition against imposition of visa requirements on visitors from North Africa

Opposition home affairs spokesman Gavin Gulia said yesterday that the opposition would vote against a bill amending the Immigration Act because it was clear that the main purpose of the bill was to enable the government to adopt EU regulations on the free movement of people and capital.

He said that if the government adopted the EU's common visa policy and imposed visa requirements on the citizens of North African countries who currently did not need a visa to come here, a Labour government would see how it would restore the situation to what it was at present.

Dr Gulia said in parliament that contrary to what the government claimed, in the EU membership talks regarding the free movement of workers, Malta had achieved neither a transitional period nor a derogation. In terms of the agreement reached in the talks, Malta would as from the first day of accession be bound to automatically issue work permits to EU nationals who wished to work here.

That would remove the current policy where work permits were only issued to foreigners when the jobs in question could not be performed by the Maltese.

In terms of the agreement reached with the EU, Malta could withhold work permits to EU nationals in the first seven years after accession only in exceptional circumstances which disrupted particular labour sectors. That implied that Malta would already have a problem it would have to deal with.

Furthermore, after the seven year period elapsed, the government would be unable to unilaterally stop EU nationals from working here and would have to hold fresh talks with the EU.

Given the small size of Malta's labour sector, even the arrival of a small number of foreign workers could cause problems, Dr Gulia said.

He observed that the bill also empowered the minister to issue regulations for foreigners who wished to work in Malta as self-employed. While the government may have tried to protect Maltese workers after accession, the same could not be said for the self-employed.

EU nationals would be able to work as self-employed in Malta without any restriction.

The government was claiming that such foreign nationals would require the permits normally required by businesses, but that was the same as applicable for the Maltese. At present foreigners could not work in the wholesale and retail sectors in Malta, among other sectors. But they would be able to do so as soon as Malta joined the EU.

Dr Gulia said a survey commissioned by the European Commission showed that Malta was the candidate country where the French, Italians, Belgians, Danes, Dutch and Spanish were most interested to work, study and live. Malta was the second preferred country among the people of most other member states.

The Labour MP observed that this bill also empowered the minister to issue regulations which would effectively mean that Malta could align itself with the EU's common visa policy.

The problem viewed by the Opposition was that countries whose citizens currently did not require a visa to come to Malta, such as North African countries (excluding Algeria) would need one once Malta joined the EU. The opposition felt such a visa barrier should not be introduced for citizens from North African countries, with which Malta had close trade links, and a future Labour government would see how it would restore the situation to how it was at present if a visa requirement was introduced by the present government.

Dr Gulia referred to the purchase of property and said that upon accession, EU nationals wishing to settle here would have no restriction to purchase their primary residence here, whereas at present such people needed a permit and could not buy property priced below Lm30,000 in the case of flats and Lm50,000 in the case of houses.

Turning to the provisions of the bill on illegal immigration, Dr Gulia observed that the bill was empowering the Principal Immigration Officer to order the deportation of any foreigner found in Malta illegally. To date the Principal Immigration Officer could only order the deportation of persons refused entry into Malta but the deportation of foreigners who would already have entered Malta rested on the courts. The Opposition agreed with these provisions.

The bill, however, discriminated between EU nationals and others found to be in Malta irregularly. In the case of the former, the Principal Immigration Officer could not automatically issue a removal order but had to refer to the Immigration Appeals Board. Surely the same right should be given to everybody.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg earlier concluded his explanation of the contents of the bill. He said that even after EU membership Malta would retain the work permits system. Although, after EU accession, work permits would be issued automatically to EU nationals who wished to work here, if there was an influx of workers which distorted particular sectors, the government could in the seven years after accession withhold such permits. After that seven year permit, if problems persisted, Malta would present its case to the EU institutions.

With regard to foreigners wishing to work as self -employed here, Malta could impose the same restrictions as other countries, such as permits or VAT requirements, but there could be no discrimination between Maltese and EU nationals.

Dr Borg said that Malta and other applicant countries were not expected to join the Schengen border controls agreement immediately upon accession but this bill would enable Malta to implement the agreement once it was adopted.

The minister said Malta agreed with the arguments for joint patrols of the EU's external borders, which in Malta's case meant the sea around it. Malta was already hard pressed to patrol its waters and such international cooperation would thus mean a lesser burden.

Nationalist MP Michael Bonnici observed that in terms of the European Convention on human rights, a foreigner could not be deported from any country without valid reason and there had to be due process. This right was being safeguarded in the bill under debate.

It was unfortunate that the Opposition would vote against this bill, because they viewed it as linked to EU membership. The provisions of this bill were needed by Malta even if it did not join the EU.

Mr Bonnici observed that the biggest problem of illegal immigration involved people from or who originated from North Africa. The introduction of new visa regulations would, therefore, be beneficial to Malta to better control this problem.

Access to the EU's visa data base was important for Malta from the security point of view.

Mr Bonnici that Maltese citizens would benefit from the adoption of the Schengen agreement as they would not have to wait in queues in order to have their passports checked when travelling from one EU country to another.

EU membership would also make for closer collaboration between Malta and EU countries against illegal immigration, smuggling and other crime, such as terrorism and the possible shipment of nuclear materials.

The Nationalist MP insisted that the police should keep an eye on foreigners who although legally allowed in Malta, such as when they held a visa, could overstay or employ themselves illegally.