The following is the feedback of the Justice & Peace Commission, the Migrants’ Commission and the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Malta, to the new labour migration policy.

It is informed by the recently published Justice and Peace Commission study, Beyond GDP II: Third Country Nationals in Malta: Sharing in our economic future or serving labour market interests?, and by the experience of the Migrants’ Commission and JRS Malta in providing services and support to migrants and asylum seekers in Malta.

Firstly, we commend the government’s efforts to address some of the failings of the current system, which place third country nationals (TCNs) in a vulnerable position and in a state of power imbalance. 

We welcome measures such as the extension of the 10 day ‘grace’ period, the extension of the renewal period to two years, as well as measures aimed at retaining workers, restraining the power of employers and reducing the risk of abusive practices. We acknowledge that these measures are steps in the right direction as to make the life of TCNs less uncertain and more dignified. 

We would like to put forward our recommendations, in line with the four pillars suggested in the consultation document. 

Retention and Stability

The policy introduces measures to tackle the high turnover of foreign workers and fostering more stability within the local labour market. Although these measures are positive overall, we believe that they do not go far enough.

On the recommendations contained on the policy document we have the following comments:

  • We welcome the extension of the renewal period from one to two years since many of the migrants interviewed for Beyond GDPII mentioned that yearly renewals were quite destabilising. Extending renewals even further and making long-term residency more achievable is recommended, to enhance retention and stability.
  • Whilst lowering the renewal fees is commendable, the increase in fees for first time applicants might have adverse effects if not paired with enforcements against exploitative temping agencies, since it might lead such entities to charge further exorbitant fees. This is also in line with Recommendation 5, whereby it is being suggested that direct access to TCN employment is enhanced. 

Other measures which could be introduced to help foreign workers understand the system, become better aware of their rights, seek support where necessary, particularly in cases of exploitation and abuse, and avoid lapsing into irregular status could include:

  • Systematic provision of information to workers about how the system works, about their rights and obligations, and possible sources of support in case of difficulty, in different languages and through various means including posters, leaflets, social media, etc.
  • An information desk for workers at Identita’, ideally in collaboration with the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations and/or one or more unions, to provide information, advice and support, as well make appropriate referrals to other services, in cases where a risk of labour exploitation, trafficking, or other forms of abuse is identified.
  • Mechanisms for automatic renewal reminders and basic information on renewal, to help TCNs avoid lapses in legal status.

In the policy, the issue of foreign worker retention is framed predominantly in terms of its economic implications for employers. Although the document notes that ‘short-term stays mean that foreign workers have fewer opportunity to integrate into the local community, which can lead to social isolation and weaker connections with Maltese society’, the policy recommendations fail to address the personal and relational challenges faced by migrants, such as isolation, feelings of exclusion, and the impossibly to build a stable and dignified live in Malta. We believe it is essential that policies are be designed to address these social dimensions alongside economic objectives. 

Beyond GDP II reveals that high turnover rates among TCNs are driven by poor living conditions, insufficient legal protections and limited pathways to long-term residency or citizenship, as well as difficulty in family reunification processes. Our experience providing services to different categories of migrants in Malta supports this finding. It is therefore clear that these issues need to also be tackled if the government is serious about retaining foreign workers in Malta.

To this end, we welcome the measures envisaged in the recently launched Integration Strategy and Action Plan (2025-2030), to enhance, expand, revitalise and promote the “I Belong” programme, which ultimately could lead TCNs to long term residency. It is clear, however, that the proposed changes will not be implemented overnight. In the short to medium term, we therefore urge the government to allocate or redirect resources to the programme, to help to shorten the waiting lists which are currently reported to be even two years long. 

We also commend the proposal to remove the 12-month validity of the “I Belong” certificate and the proposed modification to Article 5(3)(a) of S.L. 217.05 (Recommendation 27), which raises questions of compliance with EU law. 

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, which is intended to promote the integration of third-country nationals who are long term residents in the EU, allows Member States to require that applicants for long-term status to comply with integration conditions. However, the Court of Justice of the EU has made clear that: ‘…the discretion granted to Member States by Directive 2003/109 in that respect is not unlimited. They may not apply national rules which are liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by a directive and, therefore, deprive it of its effectiveness (see, to that effect, Case C-61/11 PPU El Dridi [2011] ECR I-3015, paragraph 55). 

In our experience providing services, we have encountered numerous instances where this ‘expiry date’, together with the requirement in Article 5(3)(a) that applicant for LTR must have completed an integration course in the twelve months prior to the application, acted as an obstacle to the integration of TCNs who have lived and worked in Malta for many years, paid taxes and social security contributions, and completed the mandatory integration requirements, even if not within the timeframe laid down in the law. As many interviewees in the Beyond GDPII research mentioned, this prescriptive time-limit on the validity of the certificate is unnecessary, as the relevance of the course does not change. Moreover, in case of significant changes, TCNs can be offered a ‘refresher course’.

In this light, it is important that the policy specifies that, as a result of the changes proposed (i.e. the removal of the 12-month validity of the “I Belong” certificate and the proposed modification to Article 5(3)(a) of S.L. 217.05),  all TCNs who completed the course to date will be able to apply for long-term residence if they are in possession of all the other requirements.

Protection of Employee Rights and Enhancing Working Conditions

We appreciate that the policy attempts to decrease the power imbalance between employers and employees and reduce workers’ vulnerability to exploitation and abuse. However, to achieve the stated aim, we recommend that the following steps are taken: 

  • Through the Beyond GDPII research it transpired that information held by Identita’ and Jobsplus varies greatly. This leaves the authorities with inaccurate data – but also means that the processes of registering employment and termination letters (by employers) is not being correctly executed. Harmonising data sets is essential to help in enforcement (as per Recommendation 6) and curb abuses.
  • The policy document contains few recommendations on the application process which, for many TCNs we encounter, is fraught with uncertainty and highly stressful. In many cases they have no control over the process, and little or no information about the status of their application, as all contact with the authorities is handled by their employer or an agency. Beyond this, the assessment process is long and lacking in transparency. We therefore recommend that the policy establishes a clear timeline for the processing of applications and clarifies the role of the various agencies responsible for the processing of applications. Moreover, it should ensure that applicants are always updated with the status of their application. 
  • The appeals procedure too is often very long and, as it is not possible to work during the appeals procedure, TCNs are often reduced to homelessness and destitution. We therefore recommend that a timeline is established for the appeals process. Moreover, the Immigration Appeals Board must be strengthened to allow it to deal with appeals expeditiously and efficiently.
  • Many respondents in the Beyond GDPII study mentioned that employers, when terminating employment, sometimes provide back dated letters, putting the employees in a situation of illegality – since they would appear on paper that they would have stayed in Malta longer than permissible (10 days). 

Our services too, have come across cases where this practice is used by recruitment agencies and other employers, to punish employees for leaving. Such practices are likely also intended to dissuade others from following suit, as they know that if they do, they will lose their right to stay. The fear of ending up in an irregular situation is often so great, that workers are unwilling to leave even situations of extreme exploitation and abuse. 

That employers can engage in these practices with such ease, and without fear of negative repercussions, highlights a major gap in the labour protection framework – greater enforcement on employers and clamping down on such tactics must be carried out. 

  • Whilst we see value in recommendation 8, whereby salaries are to be paid directly into the employee’s bank account, it is important that discussions are held with the banking authorities (e.g. major banks, MFSA, the FIAU and the Malta Bankers’ Association) to ensure that the TCNs have access to a Payment Account with Basic Features, without prejudice of the current AML/CFT framework. Many foreign workers (including EU nationals) complain that access to bank accounts remains very difficult to attain. This difficulty is particularly acute in the initial months of a worker’s stay in Malta as, even if they have a ‘temporary authorisation to work’ they will not be able to open a bank account without a residence card, however for many it subsists even after.
  • Recommendation 9, that is the increase of the grace period for TCNs whose employment has been terminated from the current 10-days as per Identita’ policy to 30 days, and in some cases 60 days, to seek a new employment, is an improvement from the current situation. However, this period will need to be extended once art. 11 of the Directive (EU) 2024/1233, which is already in force, is transposed into national legislation by May 2026. Indeed, the new single permit directive allows a period of unemployment of at least three months and up to six months for TCNs who have been single permit holders for more than 6 months, before the permit is withdrawn. Furthermore, art. 12 of the aforementioned directive extends the right of equal treatment for TCNs workers.
  • We are particularly concerned with Recommendation 13, establishing a high-risk country list for employment applications. Such a blanket approach towards whole countries is arbitrary and unjust, and might lead to, or exacerbate already existing, discriminatory attitudes from the authorities themselves, employers and the general public.  Such a ‘one-size fits all’ approach should be avoided. 
  • The recommendation to increase the duration of the residence permit for victims of human trafficking from six to twelve months, is an important and positive step, as is the exemption from application fees, but these measures are insufficient to ensure effective protection. Expanded pathways for recovery and reintegration are essential to offer comprehensive support to this vulnerable group. Although Beyond GDP II does not specifically address human trafficking, it highlights the existence of systemic barriers that prevent TCNs (included those who fall victims of human trafficking) from accessing necessary services. Many TCNs encounter significant challenges due to complex legal and administrative processes, which can be overwhelming and difficult to understand. A more proactive approach is needed to ensure the safety and dignity of TCNs who are victims of Human Trafficking.

Possibly the greatest shortcoming of the proposed policy in the area of worker protection is the fact that it remains narrowly focused on workplace issues without addressing the broader structural factors that contribute to these challenges. Beyond GDP II, illustrates how systemic barriers, such as dependency on specific employers under the single work permit system, leaves TCNs highly susceptible to exploitation, restricted mobility and limited bargaining power. We therefore suggest that the single-work permit itself should be de-coupled from one employer, since this gives excessive power to the employer and does not allow workers to move forward in the skills ladder, and instead be occupation-based, allowing TCNs to switch employer within the same sector without reapplying for a permit. 

While the policy’s commitment to bolster capacity for enforcement and investigation is positive, it is not enough to prevent, identify and address abuse. 

For workers to report abuse, they need to have access to information about their rights, and about the structures in place to provide support in case of need.  This information must be accessible, which means that it must be provided in a language that they can understand, and available in places where are easily accessible to them. In the context, reference is made to the recommendations on information provision mentioned earlier this document. 

It is also essential to strengthen the protection provided to workers by creating systems that allow for safe reporting of violations of labour law for all workers, including those in an irregular situation. Reporting procedures are safe if information received is treated as confidential, allowing workers to report without fear that their personal data will be shared with the immigration authorities.

Aligning Labour Migration with Labour market needs

Whilst we acknowledge that the suggested document is focused on labour migration, the suggested policy measures as well as the accompanying promotional material being currently broadcasted to the Maltese general public (TV, radio and social media) focuses greatly on economic objectives and the regulation of labour flows. This approach risks reducing migrants to mere economic assets, overshadowing their inherent dignity and value as individuals. A more balanced framework should recognise TCNs as contributors not only to economic growth but also to the social and cultural fabric of Malta. Beyond GDP II, echoes this concern, warning against the commodification of TCNs as tools for economic gain at the expense of their well-being. The report calls for a shift in perspective, advocating for a policy that values TCNs as integral community members whose dignity and quality of life are prioritised. 

In line with the above we highly recommend that:

  • Advertising campaigns which use ‘othering’ wording which might further polarise people in the ‘us and them’ mentality are repealed. This includes wording such as “Fejn m’hemmx bżonn ma jiġux aktar”  (https://fb.watch/xejLa5lppW/) or “ Jiġu BISS fejn hemm bżonn” / “ Irridu ħaddiema ta’ kwalita’, ppreparati u li jifmhu l-ħajja Maltija” (https://fb.watch/xejTcqJ8YA/). Aside from being populist these slogans could further exacerbate the negativity which the local population has been harbouring against foreigners given the great influx of TCNs and work against any possibility of integration.
  • Whilst we do understand the thought process behind Recommendations like 23 (Assessment of shortages and surpluses with the possibility of introducing quotas or moratoriums on surplus occupation), we would like to caution the authorities, to not dilute the migrant workers to simply another factor of production and to view them in their full human dignity. Hence, in cases where surpluses and overstaffing are identified, these should only prevent new applicants from being accepted and not result in the refusal of renewals of workers already in Malta. Otherwise, this measure would undermine the ‘stability’ mentioned under Pillar 1. One way of achieving this is through the introduction of dynamic quota systems that adjust based on real-time labour demand data, ensuring surpluses don’t affect existing workers.

Skills-Based Approach to Migration

The policy’s focus on using labour migration to address the shortage of specific skills within the Maltese economy is nothing new. What is innovative, however, is the commitment to invest in the upskilling and integration of foreign workers through the implementation of courses, training courses and other schemes to enable them to increase their skills and advance in their field of work.

While these initiatives are praiseworthy, and will ultimately benefit both the Maltese economy and the foreign worker, we would like to highlight the following points, some of which were already mentioned earlier:

  • Regarding the increased salary benchmarks for the KEI and SEI, it is important that any increases are realistic and in line with current labour market trends. Moreover, they should not apply to professionals already employed in Malta.
  • As previously mentioned, and in line with the recently launched Integration Strategy, (2025-2030), we urge the authorities to channel more resources to the ‘I belong’ courses, already in the to ensure that these are accessible, effective and relevant to the migrants. 
  • De-coupling the single work permit from a particular employer, could encourage TCNs to upskill and train further, since it would enable them to apply for better paying jobs and apply for promotions, without the need to reapply for a permit (which ultimately could open them up to the risk of being rejected). 

While the focus on upskilling the local workforce and improving the retention of foreign workers is positive, it is important to remember that, although the narrative is often that many TCNs are low-skilled workers, Beyond GDP II has provided evidence that whilst it is true that TCNs are often concentrated in essential yet undervalued and low productivity sectors like construction and hospitality, these workers are not necessarily low-skilled per se. A European Commission study has shown that 50% of TCNs are overqualified for the work they do. Indeed, TCNs often face systemic barriers to upward mobility and fair compensation. 

In view of this, we believe that, in addition to the measures envisaged in the proposed policy, it is necessary to identify and remove systematic structural barriers which lead to most TCNs (including highly skilled ones) to be relegated in low-skilled, low paying jobs. For instance, by finding better ways to match and assess foreign qualifications to local levels as well as create more awareness campaigns amongst local employers, in addition to the proposal to establishing bridging programmes that validate and recognise the skills and qualifications acquired abroad, which is commended.

Moreover, the government’s policy with its emphasis on attracting highly skilled migrants, coupled with restrictive measures for low-skilled workers, risks exacerbating inequalities. Disadvantaged groups may face increased barriers to entry, which runs counter to principles of social justice and equity. A more inclusive approach would ensure fair opportunities for all skill levels.

Important points that are not tackled by the consultation document:

Social Integration and Cohesion

The document offers limited proposals on fostering meaningful integration and building solidarity between Maltese citizens and migrants. Integration is vital not only for the well-being of migrants but also for strengthening societal cohesion. Clear strategies to promote mutual understanding (as opposed to a one-sided understanding of the Maltese lifestyle by the TCN community, as proposed in some of the advertisements currently in use) and shared responsibility would enrich the policy. Beyond GDP II, underscores that TCNs often struggle to access adequate housing, education and healthcare, which creates barriers to social integration. The report also highlights the lack of community-building initiatives that can bridge cultural gaps and foster mutual respect and understanding.

Family reunification and children IDs 

Whilst several proposals aim to promote foreign workers’ integration in Malta, they fail to address the elephant in the room- i.e. issues related to family unity and/or reunification. Long-term stability and retention of workers will also depend on the possibility to have their family and loved ones with them. 

The income requirement for family reunification, which is calculated annually on mean and/or median income of the total population, is prohibitively high for many foreign workers, who tend to be employed on a relatively low basic wage, even if they are carrying out an essential service for which there are few, if any, local applicants.  Beyond GDPII has also uncovered instances where the moving thresholds  result in family members being  accepted at one stage and rejected upon renewal. This is disheartening in the case of partners, but even more distressing when the dependants whose IDs are not renewed are children. 

It is also important to note  that even for children who qualify for residence, the lengthy processes often leave them out of schooling for a number of months, unless parents tap into unofficial networks. 

We therefore recommend that the issues impacting family reunification are looked into and addressed – since, despite not being directly linked to the labour market – they do affect the retention of TCN workers, as well as their quality of life in Malta.

Retention of skilled and experienced TCN workers already living in Malta

The recommendation to grant special consideration to partners of Maltese nationals and parents of Maltese nationals who are under 23 years old, entitling them to access employment and exempting them from the standard single permit process typically required for labour migrants is truly welcome, as it will significantly improve the quality of life of these families. 

However, there are other categories of TCNs who have lived and/or worked in Malta for years and are an integral part of Malta’s economy and social fabric, yet do not have documentation that formally acknowledges this reality. These include adult TCN children of Maltese nationals, some of whom were brought up, or even born, in Malta, as well as rejected asylum seekers (including former SRA holders), among others.

We believe that the creation of this first labour migration policy for Malta presents a unique opportunity to address their situation. This approach would be in line with the guiding principle on worker retention and stability, which runs through the prosed policy, and the commit in the Government’s 2022 electoral manifesto to ‘enhance labour market accessibility for TCNs already residing in Malta, with a focus on facilitating their workforce participation and productive engagement’.

The current system, which does not allow for regularisation of rejected asylum seekers in any circumstances, even if they have lived and worked in Malta for years, means many skilled and experienced workers end up without a formal legal right to live and work in Malta, and sometimes find themselves on the return track, when removal becomes possible. This has a destabilising effect not only on the TCNs involved but also on their employers, who lose experienced and valued employees that they would have invested in training.

For this reason, we recommend that the government engages with employers to find ways in which the labour migration policy can address this situation, particularly for employees who are skilled and experienced, and have worked in a specific sector for several years. One way to achieve this would be by granting them the possibility to access the single permit procedure.

Pensions 

Whereas the TCNs are economically and financially contributing to the Maltese economy and to its welfare, through the taxes and the social security contributions that they pay, they might not receive any pension entitlement if they do not reach the minimum number of social security contributions. We suggest that the authorities explore ways to ensure that TCNs will be able to receive part of their contributions.

Conclusion

We do hope that these recommendations will help in further improving the proposed labour migration policy, and make sure that TCN workers are valued both in the working sphere but also in the social sphere as persons whose worth goes beyond their contribution to our GDP figures.