Editorial

This morning, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, until a few days ago Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formally starts his pontificate as Pope Benedict XVI. His election last Tuesday as successor to the universally loved John Paul II took many by surprise.

The surprise, for most, was the fact that the conclave of cardinals took barely 24 hours to decide on the Polish Pope's successor, a 78-year-old at that, while, for many 'liberal' Catholics the surprise was that the new Pope was none other than their 'arch-conservative' nemesis, the German cardinal renowned for his inflexible orthodoxy in matters of faith and morals.

Perhaps the latter will soon be having another surprise in store, as they gradually discover that Benedict XVI will be in all respects a Father to his Church and a Shepherd to his flock as John Paul II was. Not necessarily in his character, for this depends on each individual, but certainly in his reaching out to all, within the Church and beyond it.

In just a few days the new Pope has already given proof of this, of his readiness to dialogue. He also signalled continuity by confirming most of the Holy See's top officials in their posts. Indeed, his frequent references to John Paul II and his admission that he is constantly guided by him indicate a desire to continue in his footsteps.

May the Church be invigorated by its new visible head, Benedict XVI, whom the cardinals - inspired by the Holy Spirit - chose with such alacrity (and, it is said, virtual unanimity) for his undoubted qualities, not least that of defending and proclaiming the truth, now under such unlenting attack from a materialistic, selfish world which seems to have lost its soul - and its sense of God.

Pensions reform cannot be delayed The General Workers Union last Friday gave its reaction to the White Paper on pensions reform published in November. Its 26-page report, presented at a press conference by secretary-general Tony Zarb, lists ten points or "steps" which the GWU deems necessary for any meaningful pensions reform.

We have long insisted that a reform of the pensions system - and another long-overdue reform, that of the rent laws - must have the widest possible consensus, so it is important that the views of Malta's largest trade union are taken into serious consideration.

Having said that, however, some of the GWU's points fuel the suspicion that the union is not convinced that pensions reform is necessary and urgent in view of the inexorable narrowing of the contributor/beneficiary ratio which is making the pensions bill a growing burden on the public exchequer.

One cannot here enter into a detailed discussion which the subject deserves, but it is worth signalling a couple of points which the GWU should reconsider. For example, while one agrees with the first "step" , that the government should see to it that the economy grows at a faster rate, this should not be a prerequisite for pensions reform, which simply cannot wait. Indeed, putting pensions on a proper foundation would ensure a much healthier position in government finances - one of the conditions for meaningful economic growth.

The GWU also disagrees with the mandatory saving (as from 2010 for those now under 45) envisaged by the proposed reform's second pillar, saying this should be voluntary, and in any case postponed until the national savings rate increases. But surely this would undermine the very foundation of a proper reform because the alternative would be - in the union's view - raising the mandatory 'basic' state pension. This would require a bigger state contribution, and thus be a greater burden on all taxpayers.

The GWU also opposes raising the retirement age from 61 to 65. This measure (which the White Paper suggests should be staggered over a number of years) is essential if the welfare gap is to have a chance of being narrowed. Here, again, the demographics are inexorable as the birth rate continues to drop (and therefore fewer people enter the labour market), and life expectancy (and therefore the number of beneficiaries) continues to rise.

An alternative to raising the retirement age to 65 is to give the alternative of qualifying for a pension on completing 40 years of National Insurance contributions (the GWU argues for 35 years). As it is, the White Paper limits this to between the ages of 25 and 65. Obviously, thousands of employees are not graduates and start to work before they reach 25.

These points are all subject to discussion. However it is difficult to disagree with Mr Zarb that pensions reform should be based on solidarity and social justice, and that everyone should carry their share of the burden.