The Nationalist Government has been trying to give the impression that the Labour Party has no position on private pensions. This is a totally unfounded accusation because a mere perusal of the 2003 election manifesto reveals that the MLP had already crystallised its position on private pensions at that early stage.

One might argue that the manifesto does not hold water any more since Labour was defeated, but it is common knowledge that Labour’s defeat was mainly attributable to the EU issue rather than to issues such as social policy.

We had made it clear in our manifesto that we supported private pensions, so long as they were:

• strictly voluntary;

• run by sound financial institutions;

• subject to rigorous regulatory bodies;

• eligible for tax incentives;

• guaranteeing a more than adequate social safety net for those who were reluctant or unable to take up such pensions.

Nevertheless, I personally think that the imminent introduction of such pensions at this particular moment is ill-timed, because given the financial dire straits most families are in they can ill-afford to allocate personal funds to them.

The real problem that the country is facing right now is a funding crisis in both the health and education sectors. But, once again, the government prefers to hide the facts.

In the present circumstances, tackling health and education is much more urgent than tackling pensions.

It is becoming very apparent that the government will be using pension reform as a mere pretext for raising its cash flow from social security to be able to cross-subsidise health, without having to take any of the tough decisions it always postpones or refuses to take.

What the government also fails to mention is that while criticising Labour for not having taken a formal position on so called pension reform, the government itself has not yet declared what its official position is going to be.

It has merely published updated versions of the feedback it has had to its white paper on pension reform. But so far we have no inkling of when the relevant legislation will be moved nor the direction in which government will be heading – particularly when it boils down to specifics.

Nevertheless, given the exigencies of EU membership it will push on regardless, irrespective of the social cost and burden that ordinary tax-

payers will be compelled to carry.

Meanwhile, let us sincerely hope that we will not go through the same traumatic experiences as those gone through by British subscribers to private pensions, where in a vast number of cases they have ended up virtually penniless!

The French riot tsunami

As a person with a deep admiration for the “attractive” parts of France, be they in Paris itself or Strasbourg which I visit frequently on Council of Europe business, I was shocked by the riot tsunami France has recently experienced. What shocked me even more was the statistic that the vandalism and arson had spread across no fewer than 274 cities and towns.

I have followed very closely most of the socio-economic commentaries that have probed these riots in various segments of the international press, but the analysis which struck a chord most with me was that the riots were instigated by kids caught between two cultures and belonging to neither, as well as the assessment that these kids – who were born in France and often speak little Arabic – do not know the country where their parents were born but feel excluded, marginalised and invisible in the country where they live.

A Francoist revival?

When I was recently working on the Council of Europe report on human rights abuses under the Franco regime I could detect certain sympathies for the regime in quarters I would rather not mention. With this in mind, it came as no surprise to me that a pro-Franco history book is currently topping the bestseller list in Spain. Ironically, the author, who whitewashed the behaviour of a regime that liquidated tens of thousands of opponents over nearly 40 years, is a former member of a violent left wing group who has been rejected by many professional historians as a pseudo-historian “who has found a publishing goldmine as a modern Franco apologist”.

From Peres to Peretz

Although he has been at the helm of the Israeli Labour Party for barely a fortnight, Amir Peretz is already being described as “the man who could bring about a revolution in Israeli politics”.

While according to peace activist Uri Avnery “Peretz stands for ‘breakthrough’,” the man has for decades advocated a Palestinian state. He has already called for an end to the unilateralism practised by Sharon while at the same time calling for a negotiated peace by engaging with the Palestinians directly without making any pre-conditions.

On the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin he called for a “moral road map, whose guiding star is respect for human dignity”. He even went on to describe it as a “moral road map that will end the occupation and sign a permanent agreement”.

Has Israel found its own Lula?

Thank God for finding an Israeli leader who places great emphasis on working with the Palestinian Authority in furthering moves towards peace.

Peres was a great visionary but in enmeshing himself with the Likud government he became too much part of the establishment while creating the vacuum for a real opposition party.

I nevertheless salute him for his peace endeavours and political foresight and wisdom, particularly evidenced during the days when I used to attend Socialist International meetings as MLP International Secretary.

Leo Brincat is opposition spokesman for foreign affairs and IT e-mail: [email protected]