First to speak was Karl Chircop who said that while the Opposition was in agreement with some of the amendments to the bill, there were others which were not appropriate.

He said that one amendment was unfair in particular. “You can liken it to an increase in taxation. Elderly in residential homes or receiving medical care are being taxed more,” said Dr Chircop.

He said that one only had to do simple maths to see that these elderly people will be paying through the nose. “I did my sums, taking into account that about 2,000 people were in care and that they used to receive an average Lm200 per month as pension – before they used to pay 60 per cent in fees and that was about Lm120 per person per month.”

He continued: “As from May this year, they began paying Lm160 – an increase of about Lm40 per month. This means an additional Lm80,000 in the Welfare Committee’s coffers. If you add up the figures over a year, the Committee will be getting almost Lm1 million more than before.”

Dr Chircop said it was absolutely and utterly unfair to be gathering such a sum from the elderly who are trying to live out the rest of their lives in comfort and peace.

“Also, Government should not be taxing elderly people for the property they own. This was done blatantly by Government. These people brought us up, helped build what we have today. Is it fair that they now get taxed like this? They have paid their taxes and this is not fair after the years of work they have put in.”

Dr Chircop said this was especially scandalous after government wasted Lm10 million on Malta House in Brussels.

“These people cannot live off Lm60 a month, some want to supplement their diets, they might want to give presents to grandchildren and they might want to buy medicines,” concluded Dr Chircop.

Marie Louise Coleiro said: “This looks like a run of the mill amendment bill, but when you look for the crux of the matter, you will see that there are a few positive aspects, but the negative aspects far outweigh the good.”

She said that one of the major discriminations to the elderly was that certain illnesses, which used to be quiet rare have now become much commoner, yet, are not included in the dossier of illnesses that facilitate allocation of medical care benefits.

“There are many people who are suffering from chronic illnesses znd, although not having a minimum pension, cannot afford the medicine they need. This of course means that their condition will worsen,” she said.

Ms Colerio said injury disabilities sustained at work places were another issue. “However, we must cut out abuse and have precise safeguards to ensure that no one takes advantage of the situation,” she said.

“We must also make sure that not only the employer ensures safety and provides gear and equipment, but also that the employee makes sure he or she is practising safe work-practices,” she said.

She did however, stoke the smouldering fire by saying that there were large construction companies that pay a pittance minimum wage. “And yet they insist that employees buy their own safety shoes, helmet and other gear,” she said.

Ms Colerio said: “On Lm35 a week is this possible? I am not only referring to fathers with families, but also for single men. The authorities know which companies I mean because the amount of accidents their employees have are to say the least, substantial.”

She also said that the taxation on second properties was unfair. “What about those cases where elderly people own a garage and it is taxed at five per cent. A garage or a summer home yields no income. Is this fair?”