Pressure is mounting on the government to rectify the discrepancies between the pay packets of ministers and those of the Speaker and the opposition leader, who have both been denied due pay rises.
This comes in the wake of The Times’ revelation that besides allowing themselves to keep their MP’s honorarium, ministers also changed their expense allowance into a €6,000 higher “duty allowance”.
Former Nationalist Party President Frank Portelli says things should revert to the old system immediately.
“This has been a great error of judgment on the government’s part, compounded further by lack of transparency. Mark my words, this issue will not go away and will come back to haunt the PN at the next election,” he said.
“The government appears to be out of synch and no amount of spinning will change that,” he said, adding that people were aghast by the phenomenal rise ministers awarded themselves.
He said the issue would not be solved by giving opposition leader Joseph Muscat his dues because in the present economic climate “no one should be awarded an increase of €170,000 over five years”.
The “cure”, he said, was to make all politicians return to pre-2008 rates and refund the increases pocketed so far, “even if this is a bitter pill to swallow”.
“Then, an independent body should be appointed to establish a formula for adequate remuneration for our MPs, ministers and others.”
Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant and former Labour minister Lino Spiteri share his sentiments but were more realistic in their proposals.
Dr Sant, who earlier this year accused the government of being in contempt of Parliament over the matter, said Nationalist Cabinets had a habit of awarding themselves increases and not telling anyone.
“In 1996 we found that the Cabinet had a whole raft of perks which were never announced before,” he said.
Dr Muscat had been kept in the dark so as not to “spill the beans”, Dr Sant said, adding this was a very serious matter that exposed grave “bad practice”.
“If those at the top are not accountable, why should the person at the bottom be? If the point is that they are underpaid, they should say so and then people will either agree or not – that’s politics. But it has to be announced.
“The government is in a hole and is trying to shrug things off, using the divorce referendum as a distraction,” he said.
He added that an independent commission should be set up to look into the matter and come up with recommendations within five weeks to establish which payments were justified and which were not.
Meanwhile, Mr Spiteri questions the raises given to ministers in today’s Talking Point. He writes: “I suggest that they let bygones be bygones – meaning that they pay no refund – and go back to the pre-2008 rates (plus the statutory cost-of-living increases) for the time being. Meanwhile a team of two wise men and two wise women should be appointed to review how ministers’ and MPs’ pay should be set...”
When contacted, Mr Spiteri, who labelled this matter “one of the biggest messes in political history”, said the Cabinet’s actions “run dangerously close to misappropriation”, since things were not broken down transparently during budget votes.
And depriving the opposition leader of his pay rises was clearly “discrimination”, Mr Spiteri said.
He added that a “practical” solution must be found as soon as possible because the issue had harmed the political class a great deal.
On the other hand, Nationalist Whip David Agius yesterday criticised the Labour Party for “riding the wave of popularity” and ignoring the fact that the opposition leader was not the only person deprived of a new pay packet.
The changes were also to affect the Whips, deputy Speaker and committee chairmen and MPs, he said, but were not implemented because certain things had to be ironed out with the opposition first.
Discussions were planned to take place within a parliamentary committee but got postponed because the opposition withdrew after a dispute in May 2010. They had originally been postponed while a new opposition leader was elected.
“Time flies and doesn’t wait for anyone. There were other priorities, so we kept moving.”
Asked if he was satisfied with how the government has handled the matter so far, he said: “I think it’s unacceptable that the opposition is riding the wave of popularity. Instead of saying politicians deserve a raise and we should sit down and talk, they’re trying to catch votes.”
Confronted by the fact that it was the government which stopped the House Business Committee discussions, he said this was done because the opposition decided to make its own proposals. “So do we always have to accept what the opposition says,” he asked, adding that Labour’s proposals did not make sense because they would effectively mean government appointees would decide government pays. He added that the current system was the same as that used by the UK House of Commons.
The controversy in brief
In May 2008, Cabinet decided to make changes to the pay structures of serving politicians, primarily of the Prime Minister, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, Speaker and opposition leader. The changes, which were unannounced, included keeping the honorarium given to MPs, which they also decided to raise to €26,700 from €19,100.
But other MPs stayed on the old rate and this was only revealed two-and-a-half years later. Amid pressure from irate government MPs, ministers were eventually forced to revert to the old rate and begin refunding the difference they had already pocketed. Any changes to the honorarium were put on hold.
Last week it emerged that the Cabinet also decided to change their expense allowance into a €6,000 higher “duty allowance” and that the Speaker and the opposition leader should have had their basic salaries increased to come in line with those of parliamentary secretaries.
But while the changes were implemented for everyone, including Speaker Louis Galea, they were never implemented for Dr Muscat or the current Speaker Michael Frendo. Dr Muscat was also deprived of his honorarium, which he had pledged to charity.