Nationalist MPs will support the government and vote against the Labour Party’s motion on the controversial pay rises awarded to ministers, The Times has been informed.

Statements made by some MPs in the past weeks had indicated that the government could face an embarrassing defeat on the motion, which will be put to a vote on Saturday.

However, a PN parliamentary group meeting held yesterday seems to have settled the matter, with MPs accepting the government’s line. It was also decided that the government would present a counter motion to explain what had happened and show “sensitivity”.

Sources at the meeting said Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi told his MPs there had been an “administrative error” which led to the anomalous way the raises were granted.

The enhanced pay packets, decided by the Cabinet in May 2008, were immediately implemented for the Prime Minister, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and Speaker Louis Galea. However, ordinary MPs, the opposition leader and current Speaker Michael Frendo were kept on their old salaries.

The Labour motion calls on Parliament to condemn the “insensitive, arbitrary and non-transparent” behaviour of the Cabinet on this issue.

Yesterday’s meeting was called with urgency to discuss the way forward on divorce, following a heated e-mail exchange on Sunday between MPs on different sides of the divorce debate.

But the meeting immediately took on a conciliatory tone, with a “big effort” made by the Prime Minister to take an “inclusive attitude”, sources said. Transport Minister Austin Gatt – strongly anti-divorce and not known for mincing his words – did not attend because he was abroad.

When the discussion turned to the issue of ministers’ pay packets, the meeting carried on in much the same atmosphere, sources said. There was unanimous agreement that the affair had been mishandled and that the government had lost public opinion on the issue which it would not regain.

However, the Prime Minister made it clear he had no intention of making his ministers and parliamentary secretaries refund any more money than they had already refunded in January.

Two MPs who had raised speculation about their vote on the salary issue were Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett, both pro-divorce.

Before the meeting, Dr Pullicino Orlando told reporters there was a “worrying” political discourse being used on the divorce debate: that conscience should prevail over democratic will.

“What is interesting is that there are some people who are pricked by their conscience only when they discuss divorce,” he said, in a thinly veiled reference to the issue of ministers’ salaries.

After the meeting, he did not give further comments, except to say the discussion was open and frank.

Meanwhile, Mr Mugliett entered the meeting saying he had a number of questions to ask about the justification for the salary increases.

Leaving the meeting, he said his questions had been answered “to a point”, but did not say how he would vote on the matter.

Dr Pullicino Orlando and Mr Mugliett, sources said, had both indicated they would vote against the motion.

Dr Gonzi, who emerged from the meeting looking relaxed, did not make much mention of this issue, saying only that it had been discussed and the government’s position explained. He also made a reference to a number of money Bills coming before Parliament in the coming weeks, hinting, perhaps, at the need for unity within his group.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech, who has indicated that he would vote against the divorce Bill because of his conscience, told The Times that he would vote on the Labour Party motion with a “clear conscience”.

Family Minister Dolores Cristina and anti-divorce backbencher Beppe Fenech Adami made similar statements when asked whether their conscience allowed them to accept the way the ministers received a salary increase of €500 per week.

MP Jean Pierre Farrugia, who had been one of the most vocal in criticising the raises to politicians, reiterated his stand that he was against the Labour Party’s motion because it unnecessarily focused on the salary of the opposition leader.