With due respect, honourable minister

The migrant flow of asylum seekers from North Africa to the southern shores of the European continent has aggravated to such an extent that it has became an issue of national concern in Malta as well. Situated right in the middle of the demographic flow Malta has become a destination of chance for Africans who dream of reaching the Italian mainland hoping to settle down permanently in Europe. Although landings here have not yet reached cataclysmic proportions there have been enough to cause controversy and concern apart from attracting a good dose of international criticism and condemnation from human rights bodies.

The situation is however potentially explosive. Scarcely about 100 miles to the west of Malta the little Italian island of Lampedusa has been, in my view, the deliberate target of hundreds of asylum seekers over the last couple of months. It has become the most seductive of destinations for migrants on account of its closer proximity to the Tunisian and Libyan shores from where the journeys of hope allegedly commence. This is chiefly because the rumour has widely spread that migrants landing there enjoy the value added fringe of coercing the Italians to transport them to detention and open centres in Sicily by means of the more secure vessels of the Guardia di Finanza instead of the overcrowded and peril ridden boats that carried them on the first lap of their journey.

Fortunately enough, Malta is currently enjoying the cushy buffer of Lampedusa, much to the disillusionment of the Italians who, on account of the dearth of security resources on Lampedusa, have no alternative but to transport the immigrants to their intended final destination - Sicily. Indeed, Sicily must be on a state of alert as landings in Lampedusa automatically translate into fresh imports of migrants to Sicily.

So much is the state of concern of Mediterranean governments, particularly Italian and Maltese, that we are now growing familiar with the occasional diplomatic tiff as indeed happened last year when the Italians returned to Malta a group of immigrants who were previously assisted in Maltese territorial waters and, lately, when the Italians tried to coerce Malta into accepting migrants travelling on the German registered Cap Anamur, a move that was timely and correctly resisted by the Maltese government.

The diplomatic cat and mouse chase will persist, I'm afraid, while the phenomenon of illegal migration endures.

Lampedusa is not far enough for comfort. It is indeed excruciatingly close to us as I have had occasion to witness when I went there on a friend's yacht a couple of summers ago. We have so far been lucky enough to avoid massive influxes of migrants that would cause severe disturbances locally. But the few hundreds that have landed here, albeit by chance, have caused great embarrassment to an unprepared Malta. Should the influx shift from Lampedusa to Malta then we will know what trouble really is.

These last few days Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg and I have crossed swords over what pre-emptive action the government can take in the event of a mass influx of immigrants to our shores. The prompt reply of Dr Borg suggested, as in many other things, that the situation would be under control and that there is no cause for concern. I really hope so but I still beg to differ.

We have been unable to handle smoothly a couple of hundreds that came in over time, let alone a couple of hundreds, or worse thousands, coming in all at once as they have been doing in Lampedusa. Dr Borg poured cold water into the boiling cauldron by reminding me of his offer "to host the proposed EU border control agency". Frankly, I cannot see the immediate benefits of his offer, albeit interesting, on a hypothetical arrival of a couple of hundred migrants tomorrow morning. God forbid!

Moreover, Dr Borg mentioned the "support" shown by his government on initiatives aimed to joint repatriation flights as well as his call for assistance in the financing of forced repatriation flights. This is all very important. But where does all this leave us if tomorrow morning, or maybe this afternoon, boatloads of immigrants loom on the horizon? And, besides, it may not be so easy to request transit by air via another member state of the EU in view of the complications that are mentioned in Council Directive 2003/110/EC and, of course, without prejudice to the right of the immigrants to apply for refugee status, a process that has proved to be rather cumbersome and time consuming. And while the immigrants' status is determined they rot in our detention centres.

Strangely enough Dr Borg made two responses to my press statement. In his first response to The Times he mentions his government's claim for the financing of forced repatriation flights. His second response came 24 hours later by means of a press release - which carried the tone of a rather angry partisan outburst.

He elucidated on the source of the financing of forced repatriation flights, something which apparently escaped him in his first reaction. He explained that the government will be getting the money from the European Refugee Fund (ERF).

He then went on to blast me for daring to question how prepared we really are to face a possible mass influx of asylum seekers, even going so far as to state that the opposition has no policy and no plans. Now this is rich coming from a minister who knows how supportive the opposition has always been on detention policy and how mildly but constructively critical we have been on conditions at detention centres.

He also knows that upon my request Parliament had convened the Social Affairs Committee to discuss the problem of illegal immigration earlier on this year - something he should have done himself in the face of harsh criticism of his handling of the immigration problem from NGOs.

And if he is so touchy about criticism from the opposition then, well, he should be reminded of the severe reprimand he received from Alvaro Gil-Robles, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, on conditions at detention centres as well as from Amnesty International on the deportation of a group of Eritreans who were allegedly tortured on their return.

I am sure he will remember that his ministry is still the subject of a magisterial inquiry.

And all the Deputy Prime Minister could say is that thanks to the European Union he can get all the support he needs to control a state of emergency. Now have we not heard of this before? We were indeed promised "a new spring!" But go tell it to the marines!

I am amazed how all he could request from the ERF was financing for forced repatriation flights. It appears that the honourable minister has not requested financing to support conditions for reception at detention centres and for integration of immigrants whose stay is of a lasting nature, two areas which the ERF funds and which have been the source of serious problems to the government.

They will be more serious if we are faced with a mass influx. Indeed, the call for proposals to the ERF for community action closed on July 16, 2004 according to my latest download from the internet (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm).

The European Refugee Fund also finances emergency measures to provide temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of asylum seekers. Certainly the sudden arrival of hundreds of migrants in a small island as Malta should qualify as "mass influx".

After all what are we going to do with the immigrants and where are we going to house them until the Deputy Prime Minister gets his funds to repatriate them on flights? I think this government has a problem with choosing its priorities when it comes to funding.

Definitely failure on the part of the government to apply for funds to upgrade reception resources would be at best insensitive and at worst outrightly incompetent. The government has been making hay on its roads upgrading strategy with monies it has obtained from the Italian protocol, thanks to the good offices of the 1981 Labour administration. To miss out on assistance on a matter that is wreaking havoc just a couple of miles away from us and that can potentially cause us great financial burdens is sacrilegious.

Dr Gulia is the opposition's main spokesman on home affairs.