The number of young children in closed detention centres has risen in the past week, as government’s “fast-track policy” has been stalled by the fact that all Malta’s open centres are currently packed to maximum capacity.

Among the underage detainees currently held at Lyster Barracks in Hal Far are three babies who have been at the centre since their birth in early June, as well as at least one other infant rescued by the Italian trawler Saverio del Ceglia last Sunday. Elsewhere, UNHCR estimates that the total number of minors awaiting release from all closed centres is “close to 100.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity (MFSS) told this newspaper that children and vulnerable persons are usually given different treatment from other irregular immigrants.

“According to government policy, developed by MFSS in tandem with other ministries, unaccompanied minors, families with minor children, and pregnant women – that is, the so-called vulnerable categories – benefit from a different procedure upon their arrival in Malta,” says the ministry’s communications coordinator, Marija Schranz. “This means that procedures are fast-tracked to ensure a radically shortened amount of time in detention, and the transfer to an open centre once medical clearance by the health authorities is obtained.

“In the case of unaccompanied minors, whenever someone claims to be a minor and there are doubts as to the veracity of this, interviews and further age testing procedures establish the correct age of the person concerned.”

In practice, however, government policy does not always work out as planned. Clearly, no age verification is required in the case of infants currently in detention, and medical clearance, once fast-tracked, should only take a few days to complete. So, in view of the government’s declared policy, why have some of the infants at Lyster Barracks been held there for nearly two months?

Apparently, the answer has more to do with logistics than policy. At present, MFSS operates a number of open centres, either run directly by the government or in collaboration with voluntary organisations. Besides the larger centres housing single men, the ministry runs Dar is-Sliem for unaccompanied minors and Dar il-Qawsalla for families and pregnant women. According to Ms Schranz, these residences offer specialised services and staff in family-friendly environments.

“Due to the high number of arrivals of immigrants and, therefore, a substantial increase in vulnerable persons, accommodation in open centres is currently very stretched. Initially, this (accommodation) was required for only 20 people, whereas now over 1,300 people are being accommodated, and this figure increases on a daily basis,” she adds. “A very significant challenge the government is currently facing is the identification of further places for those who will be released in the near future.”

Whose responsibility?

Apart from lack of accommodation, the issue of children in detention has also exposed a number of apparent discrepancies regarding the responsibilities of different ministries and government departments insofar as detention is concerned.

For instance: the official policy referred to above, published jointly by the MFSS and the Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs (MJHA) in 2005, states that: “The Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity is responsible for the social welfare of all irregular immigrants, irrespective of whether these people are recognised as refugees, have been granted humanitarian status or are still without some form of official status.”

However, this does not apply to any of the 1,000+ immigrants currently held in closed detention centres. According to Ms Schranz, “while the MFSS is responsible for the welfare of immigrants irrespective of status, its role is primarily with immigrants on the outside of detention, as it is the Ministry responsible for accommodation in open centres. Having said this, in fact, the Ministry does follow up on vulnerable cases within closed centres.”

Even here, though, the exact responsibility for these people is far from clear. Questions sent this week to the MJHA regarding detention practices at Lyster Barracks were returned unanswered, on the grounds that the barracks fall within the remit of the Armed Forces and are consequently under the aegis of the Office of the Prime Minister.

It would seem, therefore, that despite drawing up the policy and assuming overall responsibility for detention, the MJHA is not answerable for its actual implementation.

Sometimes, there are discrepancies between different ministries regarding individual policy decisions. For instance, The Malta Independent on Sunday is in a position to confirm that, despite assurances to the contrary by Foreign Minister Michael Frendo, the women and child airlifted from the Spanish trawler Francisco y Catalina in July were transported to Lyster Barracks after being discharged from hospital, and not to an open centre as stated.

And to cap it all, even the abovementioned procedures for vulnerable groups appear to change according to the government department concerned.

Last week, UNHCR official Neil Falzon suggested that the task of identifying and assisting vulnerable groups fell to Agenzija Appogg, a department within the MFSS.

This was confirmed by Ms Schranz herself, who told this newspaper: “The Refugee Service Area of Agenzija Appogg works with other authorities in assessing and following up the cases of vulnerable persons in closed centres,” and also: “Another key service provision run by the Ministry is welfare services in closed centres, which are provided by the Refugee Service Area at Agenzija Appogg, particularly with the identification and accompaniment of vulnerable adults and unaccompanied minors.”

And yet, in a letter to The Malta Independent on Sunday (page 14), the agency’s communications co-ordinator, Rosalie Vella Piscopo, wrote: “Appogg works with vulnerable people referred to the Agency by the detention centre, and contrary to what the article refers to, the Agency is not involved in the identification process of these vulnerable groups.”

Confused? So am I.