Opposition MP Claudette Buttigieg questioned the inconsistency of a government which claimed that there was no room for immigrants but which was ready to accept those who pay €650,000 for their citizenship, as parliament continued to debate the controversial proposal this evening.

Dr Buttigieg noted that those who could not pay ended up spending up to 18 months in detention centres, and went on to question the government’s social-democratic credentials, stating that in this case, the government could not project itself as the defender of the small, the weak or the poor.

The MP stressed that the government had no electoral mandate for its proposed scheme, stating that it was ironic that such a law could not be found in its electoral manifesto. She also said that a scheme selling citizenship went against the “Malta taghna lkoll” (Malta belongs to us all) electoral slogan used by the Labour Party.

As MP Chris Said had done earlier in the evening, Dr Buttigieg also insisted that the official name of the proposed scheme, the individual investor programme, was deceptive. She noted that the scheme was not individual as applicants could also obtain citizenship for their closest relatives and the word investor also did not apply.

“Money becomes an investment when it is invested, and not when it is donated,” she emphasised.

Dr Buttigieg also pointed out that those who had obtained Maltese citizenship through the regular process – which typically involved well over a decade – could not understand how something they had strived so hard for was now being sold on the cheap.

The day’s debate was concluded by MP Ryan Callus, who questioned what the price tag on Maltese citizenship would have been had the Labour Party been successful in its campaign against EU membership. But he also insisted that he was ashamed to see Maltese citizenship promoted as the “cheapest” option.

Mr Callus said that he was saddened to see parliament discussing what being Maltese was actually worth, and that Maltese citizenship was being treated as though it was a supermarket product that could be purchased off the shelf.

He also said that he was surprised that such a radical change required only a simple majority in parliament.