This week there was a debate on the pensions reform that Malta needs to undertake. I would not have used the word “reform” as this would mean “changing. ” I would use the word update and adapt. Simply because adapting the basis of the law is what we are doing, in today’s circumstances. Today, we live longer, hopefully, and therefore the needs have changed. The life span of people has increased. As people live longer, then the social benefits, including pensions, medical services, home helps and the host of other different free services will have an increased pressure on them. The birth rate is less than the increase of pensioners, therefore those of us who pay are fewer than the people who get benefits. This is not a “Malta only” situation. The whole of Europe is in the same boat. Other countries are talking about an increase of retirement age to 67. Their national insurance contributions are far higher than ours. However, we must see our reality. The present pensioners and a good number of those people over 50 will not be affected in any way, and what they have will be safeguarded.

The increase in pension age will however affect the younger part of society, who today maybe does not think about such a situation. However here is another thing that the Nationalist government is taking care of. It is again thinking of the future generations. Planning and good housekeeping will assure our younger population that there will be pensions for them in the future. The problem may not be imminent, but years roll by, and the problem will be on the doorstep in no time at all. What a stark contrast to the Labour Party, which sees the problem of course, but just opposes the fact that this government is doing something about it. So, out comes a four-page note, allegedly done up by a top Labour man, and probably hurriedly done in order to present something decent. The Labour Party thinks that the pensions system should remain as it is at present and then talk about it after the next election. Quite a vision, no? So the youngsters can worry if there will be enough money to sustain the pensions system, give Labour a possible vote, and then in 2009, maybe, they will start talking about it. Now what will happen if Labour wins the election with a one-seat majority? If, as in the past, and due to continual internal strife, they cannot muster their forces and keep tight, will they lose the government? Then it will be “bye-bye” to all the visions, the promises, and, again, blame will be placed on a top exponent of their party as an excuse of not doing things. Are you prepared to risk such a situation? Or does a Nationalist government with a proper vision, a plan, give you more security?I believe that the stand taken by the Labour Party is a vote of no confidence to the under 50 population of Malta.

The MLP does not deserve their vote, as their premise is based on opportunism. On the other hand, the Nationalist government has once again taken the bull by the horns, tackled a problem after discussing it over and over again, and produced proposals to the benefit of the Maltese population. Parliament has also discussed the development issues, and again the opportunistic political marketing machine started again. What is said in parliamentary committee sessions and what is told to the people are totally different and opposite. Their members of parliament kept on proposing further plots, voting in favour, but then seemingly came out against the issue. Two weights two measures, but not seen by all. Somehow they keep on saying no, but do the opposite, and then propose an open vote, just for the marketing side of things. This is not a serious line of thought or action, and it is a dangerous way of conducting business. Well, thank our lucky stars that they are in opposition, and, probably will remain so, even after the next election.

Robert Arrigo is a Nationalist MP