PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT ABSENT FOR 80% OF SITTINGS

Updated - adds comments by Helena Dalli, Karl Gouder, George Vella and David Agius.

Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia said this evening that he would vote with the government against an Opposition motion on the raise given to the members of the Cabinet. He however appealed to the prime minister to ask ministers to reduce their duty allowance in solidarity with the people.

While describing Opposition actions as chaotic, the Nationalist MP also hit out at members of the government for not conceding enough of their raise despite the need for austerity. Furthermore, he said, despite the raise, a parliamentary assistant had not been present for some 80% of parliamentary sittings since January. Another was absent for some 70%.

Dr Farrugia did not give names.

He said that while he had been critical of the government's actions, the Prime Minister had reacted quickly and met most of his wishes. As a result, some of the planned raises were withdrawn, the Nationalist MP said.

The Opposition, Dr Farrugia said, was being chaotic in its actions.

True, the government's decision was insensitive and lacked transparency, but there were arguments which could justify it.

The Opposition had known about the raise for two years about this issue, but no one spoke up before, Dr Farrugia said.

This was an Opposition which was focused only on gaining power. Eventually it moved a motion against the ministers and in favour of the leader of the opposition. But the Opposition did not present any motion when the planned raise had also included the MPs - simply because some of its MPs also wanted the raise.

Following the raise, the prime minister had conceded to reduce the raise by 8%, Dr Farrugia said.  (interruptions).

He said some were renouncing up to 28% of their salaries and the leader of the opposition as much as 46%.

In most cases, not enough cuts had been made.

Did the prime minister know that a parliamentary assistant had, since January not attended over 80% of parliamentary sittings. Was this good, given the raise?

Dr Farrugia noted that at the time when the government decided to give itself the raise, the  economy was doing well and expanding. The Opposition therefore stayed quiet. It was only later, when the situation turned, that the Opposition started using this issue to its advantage.

Dr Farrugia said that while the economy was now starting to grow again, he was appealing to the prime minister to at least ask the ministers to reduce their duty allowance, which equals 20% of their salary, in solidarity with the people.

DALLI: GOVERNMENT ACTING 'UNDER PRESSURE'

Labour MP Helena Dalli said the government was only acting because of the strong reaction by the Opposition and public opinion.

It was acting because the people, burdened under rising prices, were extremely angry at the generous raises the ministers were giving themselves. It had also realised that its own people were turning against it.

This, she said, was a government intent on self-preservation and on helping its 'friends', even to the detriment of state-owned companies such as Enemalta and Air Malta.

GOUDER - NEED TO AGREE ON A WAY FORWARD

Nationalist MP Karl Gouder recalled that the decision to raise the income of ministers was taken at a time when the size of the Cabinet was reduced.

It had been calculated that €2.5m were spent on each of the four ministries that were eliminated.

Nonetheless, the way the government had handled the situation was a major mistake. It was also very wrong that front benchers had, for two years, received a different honoraria than the other MPs.

People presented themselves for election in order to be of service, Mr Gouder said, but it was still important for the political life to attract the best brains, and that meant that they had to be paid well.

Mr Gouder argued that the matter was not kept hidden and there was evidence that the Opposition knew, two years ago.

The two sides, Mr Gouder said,needed to move on and should agree on a way forward.

GEORGE VELLA: MAIN ISSUE IS STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE

Labour MP George Vella said there was no doubt that compensation had to be adequate. What was very wrong in this whole issue was the absence of standards in public life.

This government took its decision in 2008, and informed the House two years later. Which democratic and honest government acted in such a manner?

This was a matter which involved transparency in the use of public funds. It was how the people's money went into the ministers' pockets.  And the government, for two years, kept the whole matter hidden from Parliament and its Speaker a situation which even the speaker itself said was 'anomalous'.

Indeed, Dr Vella said, what it actually was was contempt of the House. Even Nationalist MPs did not know what was happening.

Dr Vella insisted that the Opposition was never told of this decision up to a few months ago.

Dr Vella said the Auditor-General should investigate how ministers were paid out of funds which were not approved by Parliament for that purpose.

This, Dr Vella said, was blatant abuse of power by the government.

DAVID AGIUS: OPPOSITION SAID NOTHING IN TWO YEARS

David Agius (PN) said the Opposition in its motion had not proposed any alternatives.

There was no doubt, he said, that ministers deserved a better pay, given their responsibilities and sacrificies.

The Opposition motion, he added, also said nothing about the need for a proper honoraria for MPs.

Mr Agius said one would have expected that the Opposition would have understood the need for better salaries as a way for Malta to have a better parliament.

MPs were paid worse than in Bangladesh, and ministers were paid less than private sector executives.

Mr Agius insisted that the decision to raise ministerial pay was not kept hidden and there were reports in the media.

Labour MPs George Vella and Joe Mizzi had also referred to the ministerial raise in parliament.

Even former Labour MP Lino Debono had said that the raise should be reflected in the pensions of former MPs.

But the Opposition had said nothing then, and was raising the matter now for political capital by playing with public sentiment.

Mr Agius asked what pay a future Labour government intended to give to its ministers and to MPs.

Speeches by Joseph Muscat and Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca are being reported separately.