THPN was ‘never meant to guarantee indefinite residence’
‘THPN was not inexplicably withdrawn’
Reacting to the joint editorial published yesterday by The Times, The Malta Independent and MaltaToday on the issue of the government’s intended removal of Temporary Humanitarian Protection Status-New (THPN), which will lead to deportations of people who have been living in Malta for several years, the Home Affairs Ministry yesterday insisted that such status was never meant to guarantee indefinite residence in Malta.
Reacting to the joint editorial yesterday, the Ministry explained that, instead, THPN was always a temporary arrangement.
“The editorial may also be misleading in this respect, as it does give the impression that Government has infringed an implicit promise of an indefinite permit to reside in Malta. This is plainly not the case,” the Ministry said yesterday.
While praising the valid points mentioned in the joint editorial, particularly as regards the need for a move away from a culture of concessions to a culture of rights, the ministry said that the government is in agreement with this view, although it would also have to be emphasized that “rights also entail duties”.
In the meantime, President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca lauded the newspapers’ initiative (see page 3).
In its reaction, the Ministry yesterday noted how, “THPN, in fact, may well be thought of as part of a culture of concessions, as opposed to rights. What the editorial fails to mention is that THPN was not withdrawn without any alternative being given.”
The ministry also claimed that
that the editorial’s presentation of the situation in Malta is “not always borne out by the facts”.
The Ministry said that the claim that the detention of migrants in view of return is ‘guided by opportunistic politics rather than reasoned policy,’ “ignores the fact that Malta’s legislation regulating detention pending return has the very same criteria for detention outlined in the European Union’s Return Directive”.
The Ministry says that, “The fact that there is currently an EU-wide effort, endorsed by Council, to return irregularly present third-country nationals, is likewise ignored.
“The fact that Malta currently holds the Presidency of the Council, which on the other hand is mentioned by the editorial, actually places even greater responsibility upon the Maltese authorities to intensify their efforts to return irregularly present third country nationals.”
The Ministry also clarified that persons recently kept in detention by the Police for return purposes were not in possession of any specific status.
These persons had entered Malta irregularly and applied for international protection; however their applications were rejected, the ministry added.
“Furthermore, these migrants have had the opportunity to register for the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration scheme operated in conjunction with IOM since 2007.
“The scheme, co-financed by the European Union, provides the migrants concerned with package of assistance in order to re-integrate in the country of origin. The existence of this scheme is completely ignored by the editorial.”
The ministry also dismissed the claim that THPN was ‘inexplicably’ withdrawn, “although it is understood that the discontinuation of such status would have posed cause for concern”.
The ministry adds, “It has to be said that THPN was part of the very system that the editorial itself brands a ‘system of concessions’ and that, in any case, an alternative was offered to those concerned.
“Government’s objective is in fact to mainstream holders of this status who still fulfil the criteria for the award of this status, i.e. who are gainfully employed and effectively integrated, into the Residence Permit system operated by Identity Malta.
“Those who would not qualify under such a system, but who are in a situation that calls for humanitarian protection, have been given the possibility to apply for Temporary Humanitarian Protection (THP), which status will continue being awarded by the Office of the Refugee Commissioner to those persons having specific humanitarian needs.
The ministry adds, “It should also be noted that those who wish to return voluntarily, utilising the aforementioned scheme, still have the possibility to register under that scheme.”
On the issue of solidarity, the ministry explains, “It has to be said that Malta is certainly not lacking in this respect, and never has been. It would have to be recalled that the Maltese government was among the first Member States to agree to the relocation of persons in need of protection from Italy and Greece, and that so far 46 persons have been relocated from Italy, and 34 from Greece.
“Malta has consistently ranked very high, often first, in the implementation of this project, and is currently on schedule in the implementation of its commitments.
“Moreover, Malta’s rates of protection- counting both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection- have remained high over the years, in recognition of the needs of such persons in terms of international law.
“There is no doubt that certain elements of the Maltese system would still benefit from further reform; however the editorial ignores much that has been done. What’s more, at least in places, the article presents a rather one-sided, if not a misleading, view of the immigration and asylum scenarios in Malta.”