Copyright maltatoday
Malta’s economy depends on sectors that ebb and flow with the seasons; most notably hospitality and all of its related sectors and services. Rising staff shortages are not just inconveniences; they limit capacity, curtail service quality, and throttle business performance during peak periods. Recommendation 48 of the Government’s National Employment Policy, which calls for a formal distinction between temporary and circular migration, supported by tailored permits, should be urgent policy priority, not merely a proposal. Temporary migration refers to one-off entries and constrained stays. Circular migration envisages repeat, back-and-forth movement facilitated by simplified admission and re‑entry processes. This distinction matters profoundly for seasonal industries in Malta. Only circular migration frameworks can reliably anchor a returning pool of workers who bring efficiency, familiarity, and consistent availability year after year. Europe offers established models we can learn from. The EU Seasonal Workers Directive (2014/36/EU) allows Member States to admit third‑country seasonal workers under harmonised rules, emphasises decent working conditions, and crucially, it promotes circular movement via measures like sped‑up re‑entry and multi‑season permits. In practice, this framework underpins many national seasonal schemes, guaranteeing both worker protection and employer access. Ireland has recently pioneered its own Seasonal Employment Permit, effective February 2025. Open to non‑EEA nationals, the permit allows for seasonal work of up to seven months (April 14 to November 13), renewable twice, subject to minimum remuneration and employer approval. This structured, flexible system offers a powerful illustration of how Malta could craft a circular migration scheme tailored to local realities. Designing a circular migration framework here would create several advantages: Reliable workforce continuity. Workers returning year after year become more efficient, reducing training costs and improving service quality, critical for hospitality and agriculture. Balanced regulation with flexibility. Like Ireland’s pilot, Malta can begin with certain approved employers or defined economic sectors before expanding, ensuring responsible growth. Stronger labour protection. A clearly defined permit regime lets government monitor conditions, enforce worker rights, and deter exploitation addressing genuine public concerns. Data and agility. Paired with the proposed tracer study to understand existing migration patterns, Malta can design permits informed by real-seasonal flows and optimize re‑entry rules. Other EU states reinforce the point. Several have adopted bilateral agreements, streamlined visa processes, or mandated post-season verification to ensure return; balancing labour needs with migration control. The Migration Policy Institute also highlights that successful seasonal worker programmes often combine transparency, skills development, and local engagement to maximize development impact, lessons Malta should incorporate. Malta’s employment challenges are not unique, but our response can be distinctive. By legislating a clear, evidence-based circular migration process, we signal openness, competence, and care, not just pragmatism. Businesses gain access to a more stable seasonal workforce. Workers enjoy clearer rights and predictable pathways. Government gains insight, oversight, and agility. Critically, this approach aligns with Recommendation 48’s call for a tracer study to gauge circularity. Data must drive design. Understanding how many seasonal workers return, where they come from, and industry demand patterns will inform permit duration, renewal limits, and administrative pathways. We can then design a permit that practically facilitates circular movement such as multi-year permissions, priority processing for returning workers, or simplified documentation for repeat applicants. Opponents might worry whether this will lead to overreliance on migrant labour? Not if programmes are properly scoped, time-limited, and linked to labour market needs. Starting small, perhaps by piloting hospitality in its broadest sense including ride-hailing, is prudent. Infrastructure must follow demand, not precede it. Decision-makers in Malta stand at a choice point. We can continue relying on ad hoc labour solutions that strain businesses and frustrate workers. Or we can lead, designing a forward-looking circular migration system rooted in policy clarity, humane treatment, and economic pragmatism. Recommendation 48 isn’t abstract; it’s a building block for economic resilience. It invites Malta to join the ranks of countries that manage migration intelligently, with both human dignity and business viability. I urge policymakers to treat it not as a bureaucratic exercise but as an economic imperative, one that shows Malta values both enterprise and fairness. Let’s move beyond temporary stopgaps. By distinguishing between temporary and circular migration, Malta can embrace a smart, sustainable seasonal workforce model, one that serves today’s needs and builds tomorrow’s strength.
