‘Government reacted to strong opposition, public reaction’

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.

She said there were two arguments to the issue: one was giving MPs adequate honoraria in relation to the pay of public service officials and the other the increase that the Cabinet gave to itself and later, after the public reaction, ministers had decided to give something back.

She said that the Prime Minister “threw money at the problem” to try and solve the PN’s internal problems by creating parliamentary assistants and appointing others to chairmanship of government entities.

The public was paying for the government’s uncertainty and instability. It had backtracked on a number of issues like the proposed museum under St John’s Co-Cathedral, the case of legal assistants and now the honoraria issues.

Dr Dalli said that the government, which won the last general election by less than half a quota through the power of incumbency, was not checking abuses in the public sector and instead trying to solve them by creating quangos to serve benefactors and provide jobs for the boys.

This 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.

Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca (PL) said she had no falling out with the Labour leader on the issue of the ministers, raise as claimed by a newspaper last Sunday.

She said MPs had been free to speak within the party and there was no falling out. Similarly, she said, she could not understand how the programme Realtà on One TV had tried to involve her on matters which were somebody else’s responsibility.

The ministerial raise was a major government gaffe and a scandal. The government should have admitted it had made a mistake in the way it raised ministers’ pay and kept its decision hidden. This was not the time for such extraordinary increases, when the people were suffering and many could not make ends meet.

Ms Coleiro Preca said the government’s actions had undermined the people’s attitude to politicians, seeing them as a “gang of thieves”.

Yet she, as a civil servant, had seen her progression stopped when she became an MP and the honoraria she received from Parliament was spent almost totally on maintaining her political offices. One could hardly compare her situation with that of the ministers. However, she had no regrets over her own situation. She regretted that the government had not taken up the opposition’s suggestion for the setting up of a commission to decide on adequate honoraria for MPs and the salary of ministers as of the next legislature.

Ms Coleiro Preca said she had no falling-out with the Leader of the Opposition and would remain a Labourite to the end.

George Vella (PL) said the opposition’s motion was censuring the government in the harshest way possible for its lack of transparency and sensitivity. It was shameful to give oneself such increases and expect the people to make do with crumbs. To take public funds for oneself because of one’s power was intolerable.

Pensioners and minimum wage earners knew what it was to live with less than €500 in a month. The issue was not if the Cabinet deserved it or how much – that could have been discussed elsewhere – but the condemnable way in which things had been done.

The government had taken the record for delayed official inform-ation to Parliament: more than two years later. Even the Cabinet Secretary’s letter to the Ministry of Finance had become known two years later. It was Parliament’s first duty to supervise where public funds were going, but not even the Speaker had been informed.

When requested by Alfred Sant (PL) he had ruled the situation as anomalous but not constituting contempt of the House. Dr Vella said the Speaker had used the least hurtful word, but he disagreed with the Speaker.

Allegations had been made that the opposition had known what was happening. Dr Vella said he could not have spoken about the increase because he had not been accorded an MP’s privilege of being informed by the Prime Minister. No minister had owned up because they knew it was wrong.

Dr Vella said he was looking forward to hearing from the Auditor General if what had happened was acceptable. The insensitivity was certainly unacceptable in a democracy in the face of families’ financial difficulties. It was a ridiculous argument that the Cabinet had taken €1,000 and given back €200.

In his 33 years as an MP he had never seen such an obscenity, when people could not afford their basic needs. Were government MPs looking after party or country? While other parliaments were erecting new structures to avoid conflicts of interest, when Labour had suggested an overview by independent people the Prime Minister had not accepted. The UK’s parliamentary independent standards authority was made up of extra-parliamentarians.