Social Solidarity Minister Dolores Cristina has accused the opposition of misleading the public on the pensions reform.

She told Parliament at the end of the second reading debate on a bill to reform the pensions system that some Labour MPs appeared not to have read the bill, others conveniently left out important parts of it in their remarks or gave a mistaken version of the bill's provisions.

Mrs Cristina said it was dishonest for opposition MPs to say that the government had not held consultations before this Bill was moved in Parliament. The consultations were long, thorough and wide-ranging, she said.

This government had been accused of political opportunism by the opposition because pensions reform was not on the PN electoral programme. Yet political opportunism would have existed had the government taken the easy way out by postponing this urgent reform and the difficult decisions it entailed on the pretext that it was not on the electoral manifesto. All experts' studies had concluded that delay was not an option, and the government, therefore, had to move forward.

This was not a reform that was being carried out because of EU pressure, as some had claimed, but because it was clearly needed. And unless the problem was dealt with now, it would grow more serious.

The opposition argued that pension reform needed to be accompanied by efforts to improve economic growth. That was exactly what the government was doing, and the results were showing.

It was misleading for opposition speakers to imply that this reform affected people who would soon reach retirement age. The reform would not affect those currently over 55. The retirement age would be raised gradually and, something which opposition speakers had not said - people who paid their NI contributions for 40 years could still retire on turning 61. However it was being increasingly found that many people wanted to continue working beyond 61 years of age and this Bill was now making that possible.

Labour MP José Herrera had argued that before moving on with the reform one should study the implications of the fact that more women were opting for a career. That scenario was the subject of one of the studies which had been carried out, but the Labour MP had not read the report tabled in the House.

No one from the opposition benches had spoken of how this reform was raising the maximum pensionable income or that pensions would be index-linked.

No mention was made of the credits to be given to parents who had to interrupt their career to care for their children or to study with children, and on other positive factors, Mrs Cristina said.

She thanked all those involved in the preparation of the Bill, notably the pensions working group.

Earlier in the debate, Nationalist MP David Agius said the Labour opposition's view that pensions reform was not a pressing matter contrasted sharply with the view of other socialist parties across Europe.

Even Jimmy Magro, a former MLP general secretary had said that pensions reform was a must. But the MLP was not even heeding its former leaders.

Pensions reform was a national project to safeguard the living standards of the elderly in the future, and all forces should work together to achieve this aim.

What 20-year-olds were asking today was not whether they would have to work until they turned 65, but whether there would be adequate pensions by the time they retired. This was the purpose of the reform the government was carrying out.

If the Labour Party did not want to be politically opportunistic it should vote for the amendments being proposed.

Antoine Mifsud Bonnici (PN) said there were people who were against the reform because they were shortsighted and others because they did not have confidence that the government would operate the system well.

But there was no doubt that for future pensioners to have adequate pensions, reform had to be carried out now. Otherwise the government would not be able to afford pensions.

Total spending on pensions had risen from Lm81.3 million in 1995 to Lm121.7 million in 2000, Lm295.9 million in 2010 and Lm992.6 million in 2025.

There was perception in Malta that only the state was responsible for providing a pension. Clearly, however, the system of self-help had to prevail to ensure that people had a decent standard of living on retirement.

The present maximum pension of Lm4,500 would soon not be enough for a decent standard of living. And the great majority of pensioners currently received much less. This, too was something the Bill addressed and the maximum pensionable income would go up gradually to Lm9,000. This would increase the maximum pension to over Lm6,000.

In terms of the reform, the guaranteed minimum pension would be reviewed each year and pensioners who continued working after reaching pensionable age would continue to enjoy their pension without capping for as long as they paid the first pillar contribution.

Labour MP Noel Farrugia said this reform was creating another social injustice. For what the government was proposing would see low and medium income earners at a disadvantage when compared to the rich.

The opposition was therefore right to insist that once pension reform was not urgent, further studies and consultation should be made before final decisions were taken.

One of the areas which needed to be addressed immediately was purchasing power, with both workers and pensions seeing the value of their wages and pensions shrinking in real terms.

Why was economic expansion in Malta not in line with that of the other new EU member states? Clearly sustained economic growth had to come before pension reform.

The people, however, have no confidence in the government to carry out a proper reform. They have seen too many promises which were not kept. Frederick Azzopardi (PN) said a report commissioned by the Labour Party - the New Initiatives and Projects Group Report - had also highlighted the need for the government's outlay on social services to be properly addressed at those who were really in need. That report also proposed giving consideration to raising the pensionable age to 65 years. Mr Azzopardi said that while the need for pensions reform should not be doubted, measures were also needed to maximise Malta's employment levels. The government was working on this track too.

The Nationalist MP observed that the GWU agreed with the need for an immediate pensions reform. In a report in 2000, it had said that to ensure sustainability in the future, one had to start saving now. Three years later, Labour Party deputy leader Charles Mangion had told a seminar on pensions that the pensions reform was unavoidable and had to lead to a sustainable pensions system.

So why was the opposition taking its current stand?

Jason Azzopardi said the Bill confirmed the government's long term vision and sense of responsibility. With the pensions bill rising by some Lm7 million a year action clearly needed to be taken now. Within 50 years the number of pensioners would double. How could the opposition continue to ignore these figures and live in a fools' paradise. This amounted to disrespect to the people, an attitude which the electorate should note.

Dr Azzopardi underlined various aspects of the Bill, including the raising of both minimum and maximum pensions and the laying of foundations for second and third pillar pensions. Parliamentary Secretary Tony Abela said that Labour was showing, once again, how it always shied away from a challenge.

This reform should become an electoral issue because it demonstrated how both parties acted when faced with an issue of major long-term consequences.

The Nationalist government believed, in good faith, that it was acting in the people's best interests, it was addressing challenges head on because if the occasion was missed it would be missed once and for all.