The riots at the Safi Detention Centre on 16th August have again shone a spotlight on the value and efficacy of Malta’s detention policy. Tear gas was used to quell the riot. Twenty-three immigrants, identified as the most violent of the rioters, were arrested, arraigned and held in custody. Fifteen police officers, three soldiers and one immigrant were slightly injured. Extensive damage was done to the detention centre itself.

This incident – the latest in periodic spasms of protest by immigrants held in our Closed Accommodation Centres – raises three issues. First, are the conditions under which the detainees are held adequate? Secondly, is the length of time they are held in detention unreasonable? And thirdly, should the policy of detention be abolished or replaced by some other system of control?

Irregular immigrants to Malta are held at three main detention centres: at Safi Barracks, at Lyster Barracks in Hal Far and at Ta’ Kandja. In the last 10 years since the influx of immigrants through the central Mediterranean from Libya began, the accommodation and facilities at these three locations have been improved beyond recognition. Almost all the detainees are capable of being housed in solid, mostly purpose-built accommodation, as opposed to tentage. In total, the three locations are capable of housing about 2,000 immigrants.

Safi, the scene of the latest disturbances, can accommodate about 700 individuals. While the accommodation is by definition basic, it provides a secure but humane environment. There are adequate toilet and shower facilities. Food is wholesome, nutritious and well prepared. Could matters be improved? The short answer is ‘Yes’. Like all such facilities, the daily wear and tear of many individuals living in relatively crowded accommodation exacts a heavy toll. Every effort is made by the Detention Service to ensure the accommodation is kept well-maintained, but this is difficult and financial resources are limited. Although there are recreational areas, the real deficiency lies in the lack of productive activities available to detainees, and this leads to the kind of frustration seen last week. Although a start with educational programmes has been made, this is an issue that still needs to be adequately addressed.

Is the length of time detainees are held excessive? In the last decade the Office of the Commissioner for Refugees has made huge strides in setting in place the procedures and structures to deal humanely and as quickly as possible with the influx of asylum seekers. Since 2002, over 14,000 ‘boat people’ have reached our shores. The Refugee Commissioner has considered the applications of all those who applied for refugee status and he has either granted this, or given some form of protected status (subsidiary, temporary humanitarian or provisional humanitarian in the jargon), or he has rejected their application. On average, it takes the Refugee Commissioner about five or six months to process these applications. But that ‘average’ disguises the huge number – those given some form of protected status – which are processed far more quickly, some in a matter of a few weeks.

While, therefore, it is justifiable to feel huge sympathy for any asylum seeker, who may have risked life and limb to escape oppression and hardship in his own country, who then finds himself in detention in a country where he was seeking freedom, it is a canard and an exaggeration to characterise this as “a soul-destroying and psychologically demolishing experience” [which] “raises serious human rights concerns,” as one non-governmental organisation described the relatively limited (in the majority of cases) average period of detention imposed.

The crux of the issue, however, is whether or not Malta should adhere to its detention policy, or whether a practical alternative exists. The start point for any such discussion must be the realisation that the unplanned-for contingencies arising from irregular immigration over the last 10 years have inevitably placed strains on Malta’s financial and human resources. The social, economic, demographic, cultural and security impact on Malta today – and on future generations of Maltese – raises inescapable concerns which must be addressed responsibly. To question the consequences of large-scale immigration on a small community like Malta is not to be ‘racist’ – although God knows there are racist elements among us. It is, however, to be aware of the social changes and pressures that a disproportionate influx of immigrants could bring to our society and the inevitable effects on the community in which we live.

Malta recognises its international and moral responsibilities to provide asylum or protected status to those who genuinely need it. It has been just and humane in its responses. But the potential strains on Malta’s social services, and on security and public order, must also be weighed in the scales. The possible consequences for the social cohesion, cultural and economic well-being of the country if the present pressures are not mitigated – issues which the European Union has belatedly recognised – are matters which cannot be ignored.

Nowhere is this matter more sensitive than when consideration of Malta’s policy on detention is concerned. Some NGOs have strongly argued that the present policy is wrong. In their view, while a short period of detention (perhaps two weeks) is unavoidable, all other arguments – the human rights and liberty of the individuals, the conditions in which detainees are kept and the fact that those who are given asylum or protection are released in due course to live in the community any way – point, they contend, towards the suspension of detention, the removal of all detention centres and the introduction of reception in Open Accommodation Centres (or some form of community-oriented model) after a maximum of only 15 days in detention.

There are, however, other factors that have to be weighed in when deciding what constitutes the best and most balanced solution for handling asylum-seekers in Malta. These include the political and potential social consequences of such policies, the unique physical circumstances of Malta and the employment, housing and cultural impact of how we deal with immigrants, as well as the financial and other resource constraints. All these factors argue for careful management and control and the ability to absorb the extra numbers entailed in a well-calibrated manner over time.

Malta cannot escape its physical limitations. In a country as small and densely populated as this, the impact of hundreds of asylum-seekers on the community is far greater than in any other state in Europe, or probably elsewhere. The benefits and disadvantages of putting many hundreds more immigrants into community-oriented models on the lines proposed by some NGOs have to be weighed with great care and sensitivity against the cultural, political and social implications for a society which, in Europe, is uniquely homogenous and has never before experienced the challenges which arise from a multi-cultural or multi-racial society. The overriding national interest obliges Malta to tread carefully.

On balance, while we should ensure that the period spent in detention is as brief as possible and that applications for asylum are handled expeditiously, it would be both impolitic and impractical to alter the current detention arrangements that allow the government proper control of irregular, often illegal, arrivals into Malta.