Security personnel to get bonus for CHOGM service

The government has decided that all those members of the security services involved in the holding of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting will be given a bonus, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said in Parliament yesterday.

Winding up the budget debate, Dr Gonzi said the members of the army and the other security services were facing trying times in view of CHOGM and the Queen's visit and the government would be giving a bonus to all involved in these operations.

Dr Gonzi regretted that in the budget debate the opposition had not reacted to challenges he had made to it. The members of the opposition had not explained how they believed official figures which put the government in a bad light, but not those which were positive.

Dr Sant had said that EU figures were not always reliable, and then he came up with what he said were EU projections that Malta's economic growth would be slower than what the government was projecting.

Dr Gonzi said he had not found those figures in a 128-page EU economic review issued on Thursday. But that document, among other things, pointed out how economic growth was being affected by rising oil prices. Dr Sant did not say this.

The EU document actually said that Malta's growth this year would be 1.5 per cent. The Maltese government was saying that growth in real terms in the first three quarters was 1.7 per cent. The average growth in the eurozone countries was 1.3 per cent.

The document also pointed out how Malta would manage to reduce its deficit to under three per cent by the end of next year.

The EU analysis showed that Malta achieved the third highest investment levels in the EU, following Latvia and Lithuania.

Unemployment in Malta, calculated on the basis of the Labour Force Survey was lower than in the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.

Why was Dr Sant ignoring these figures and painting a bad and harmful picture of Malta?

Dr Gonzi insisted that the increase in tax revenue next year would stem only from economic growth. Contrary to what Dr Sant had said, there would be no new burdens on the elderly. This was already explained last week, but Dr Sant was persisting in his error.

Dr Sant was continuing to argue that Malta was not achieving results in education, when the situation was continuing to constantly improve, with more young people following post-secondary courses, although more needed to be done.

Dr Sant had also continued to cast doubts on the government workings on the power and water charges, despite the detailed government explanations.

But the opposition needed to be accountable as much as the government. Did the opposition agree that the retirement age needed to be raised? Did it agree that unless change was made, pensions would neither be adequate nor sustainable? The government had published a White Paper on pensions reform while the opposition said nothing.

Dr Sant was trying to say that pension reform was not a priority and there were more important things, such as health. Health was certainly important, but the future of pensions also needed to be tackled now, Dr Gonzi said.

Did the opposition agree on the need for the government to withdraw from sectors more appropriate for the private sector?

Did the opposition feel the government should continue to subsidise loss-making firms?

The MLP was calling for an industrial policy, something with which the government agreed. But did the opposition see the need for reform to make port operations cheaper and more efficient?

What was the opposition proposing with regard to workers who were laid off? Did it want the government to create new labour corps?

Did the opposition agree with the holding of a demonstration next Thursday in Valletta which would put the country in a bad light when it should be projecting its progress? Did the opposition agree that the GWU should be holding a demonstration in Republic Street while he was meeting top businessmen from the Commonwealth Business Forum in Valletta? If the demonstration was seen as the way to create jobs, shame on those who took such decisions.

What was the opposition's policy on health? Did it agree with the investment on the new hospital?

What was the opposition's thinking on the environment? Did it want to go back to pre-1987 when building development decisions were taken by politicians without control by the proper institutions?

Would the opposition disassociate itself from the remarks about going around EU rules; about having privileged trade unions, and about putting the national interest before human rights?

Dr Gonzi said this was a government which knew where it was heading. Its purpose was to raise living standards, integrate Malta further in the EU and its standards, adopt the euro, reduce the deficit and eventually have a balanced budget, reduce the size of the government, liberalise trade further, promote the private sector and, especially, SMEs.

It wanted to attract firms with high added value which would be able to offer good working conditions to the workers. It also wanted to better train the workers, achieve excellence in health and education, promote the growth of financial services, tourism and the other areas of the economy, improve the environment and have a strong social sector where those who needed help would be able to find it and children would grow up in an environment which respected traditional values and protected them from present-day dangers, including technological ones, Dr Gonzi concluded.