I spent 34 years of my working life mostly in London, and mostly in the Ministry of Defence. My name made it obvious I was Maltese. I was proud to be Maltese, and such was the affection for Malta from senior officers who had served here that I probably got special treatment on that account alone. In all my time in London, I never experienced any discrimination or the slightest hint that the fact I was not British-born was held against me. On the contrary, I enjoyed all the rights, freedoms and privileges of a native-born Englishman.

Other Maltese who have lived in the United Kingdom, Germany, France or elsewhere in Europe will have had similar experiences to my own. Why is it then that we treat foreign residents living in our midst differently? Is it a case of latent xenophobia or sheer bureaucratic incompetence, or a little bit of both? In the last published census of eight years ago there were over 12,000 British, Italian, French, German, other EU and European citizens, together with American, Canadian, Australian and Libyan citizens living in Malta. There is every reason to believe the numbers have increased considerably since 2005.

Many are retired and have chosen to purchase properties and to live among us, and others are running businesses here. Their presence not only enhances our culture, but also makes a massive contribution to our economy. Why then does the government seek to extract money by charging them different rates for water and electricity, as well as discriminating against foreigners in so many other ways? We pride ourselves on our friendliness and on the warm welcome we extend to visitors, and on the ground this is generally the case. But when it comes to our treatment of those foreigners who wish to live and work here, the government machine presents a different aspect.

There are four major areas of concern where some form of discrimination is being practised: water and electricity rates; public transport fares; the provision of various business services; and the general administration and attitude demonstrated by various government departments. Note that I am not writing here about discrimination against coloured immigrants in Malta, a separate subject in itself which in Malta shades from xenophobia into racism. My concern is mainly focused on predominantly European foreigners living in Malta, or visiting the island as tourists.

Starting with the major bone of contention. Foreigners resident in Malta pay 60 per cent more on their water tariffs than Maltese homeowners. They pay 35 per cent more than their Maltese neighbours on their household electricity. Water and electricity rates in Malta are acknowledged by all to be exorbitant by any international measure. (It is fair to add that Maltese pay the same rates as foreign residents on their second homes).

There is neither rhyme nor reason for this blatant discriminatory treatment of foreign residents, other than a leftover from the colonial mind-set that treated foreigners as richer than Maltese and, therefore, people who could afford to pay more. The additional income derived by Enemalta from foreigners is puny in comparison with its debts. While giving equality of treatment to foreign residents on water and electricity charges will entail some public costs in income foregone by Enemalta, the overall economic benefits in taxes paid and the day-to-day expenditure by foreigners living in Malta far out-weigh these costs. Most importantly, there is no justification for it.

The government has just announced a new permanent residence scheme (the “Global Residence Scheme”) in an attempt to inject new life into Malta’s ailing property market by improving the incentives for foreigners choosing to reside in Malta. On grounds of fairness and self-interest (Malta wishes to attract, not repel, foreign residents to Malta), it seems logical that all foreign residents should pay the same rates as everybody else living here. 

Secondly, although the discriminatory fares charged on Arriva buses mainly affect tourists and other temporary foreign visitors to Malta, foreign residents using the buses are inevitably also caught in the bind of having to prove their residence in Malta by displaying their residential identity card every time they travel on a bus. A Maltese national, by contrast, speaking and looking Maltese, is not compelled to prove his nationality or place of residence to travel at the cheaper rate.

The system is utterly nugatory since it simply leaves our foreign residents and tourists (who make an essential contribution to our economy) with an unnecessarily bad taste in their mouths. It is good to know that the European Commission has started legal proceedings against Malta on this issue. The sooner the Maltese government, together with Arriva, voluntarily alter the charging rates without waiting for an adverse verdict, the better.

Thirdly, it appears that there are a number of business services – such as the provision of internet and television services, home loans and car registration – where, again, discrimination is being practised with the result that foreign residents are charged more for these services than their Maltese counterparts. There seems no logical reason in consumer or business terms for this discrimination, and I suspect that if Malta's consumer laws were more advanced it would not occur. Again, the sooner the new administration – which has rightly made electoral promises about improving consumer protection in Malta – acts, the better.

Last, the way government departments treat foreign residents is cause for concern. The inexcusable administrative cock-up, which has marked the issue of e-residence cards by the Department for Citizenship and Expatriate Affairs, has been nothing short of disgraceful. It is indicative of an attitude of mind, demonstrated by successive Maltese administrations, that a process involving people who are paying guests in our country should be dealt with in such an off-hand manner.

It fits closely with a pattern of behaviour in other fields. The inclination of so many government departments to publish their notices and instructions to citizens only in Maltese when this is formally and constitutionally a bi-lingual country (an added attraction to those wishing to set up business or to live here) is another. That government departments do not in many cases write their circulars in both languages is unhelpful and discourteous to foreigners living or working here, as well as wrong and inefficient.

There is an urgent need for a change of attitude. The response by the government spokesman to the petition submitted by over 1,000 foreign residents complaining of the discriminatory treatment meted out on water and electricity and other services did not augur well. There was a typical Maltese defensiveness when confronted with the unarguable evidence of gross discrimination. While it is plain that the present situation is not of this government's making, it is also now something which is in Malta's own self-interest urgently to correct – remembering also that these people have votes in the forthcoming European elections. They cannot continue simply to be treated like so many cash cows.

The real overall winner will be Malta's image as a country which is genuinely welcoming to its visitors and mature enough to ensure that there is no hint of discrimination against foreigners.