PM called upon to reduce ministers ’ duty allowances

Nationalist backbencher Jean Pierre Farrugia declared that he would not vote in favour of the opposition’s motion because its format and presentation had been chaotic from the start.

Speaking at the beginning of the debate on the honoraria motion, Dr Farrugia declared this did not mean the increase in the Cabinet’s and parliamentary assistants’ salaries was not insensitive and not transparent. He called on the Prime Minister to reduce the hike in duty allowances to Cabinet members in solidarity with citizens who were suffering.

Dr Farrugia said that he had no problem in criticising the government, asking the Prime Minister whether he knew that one parliamentary assistant had failed to attend 80 per cent of parliamentary sittings while another failed to attend 70 per cent of parliamentary sittings since January. He said however that more than 50 per cent of parliamentary assistants attended sittings regularly.

Dr Farrugia said that although in January he had said that he was ready to vote with the opposition on the honoraria, he had retracted from this statement after the Prime Minister had, in less than 24 hours, given an explanation to the Nationalist parliamentary group on the matter and had reduced the increases by about eight to nine per cent.

He accused the opposition that it had known about the increases for two years and had not taken any action. It had waited until last month to present the motion, which did not even reflect what was promised in the House Business Committee. The opposition was only interested in power.

He knew that the Leader of the Opposition had refused the increase as soon as the issue became public. He claimed that the opposition did not present a motion on parliamentarians’ salaries because there was no consensus within the Labour parliamentary group.

Dr Farrugia said that in EU and other countries government and parliamentarians’ honoraria was reduced by five and 20 per cent because of the austerity measures taken in different countries. In Malta, the Prime Minister, ministers and parliamentary secretaries had renounced to between eight and nine per cent in total between salaries and allowances. Standing committees’ chairpersons had renounced to seven per cent of salaries while committee members, including those representing the opposition, had renounced to 28 per cent. He said this was not fair because austerity measures had to apply equally to everyone.

One had to consider the increase in the honoraria in the light that it was taken in March 2008 when the Economic Survey for the first six months of that year had shown that the GDP had registered a 3.3 per cent increase. The opposition had started to take action on the honoraria when the Economic Survey showed that GDP had decreased to 2.6 per cent between January and June 2009. Dr Farrugia claimed that during this time, the government continued to support vulnerable people through family health measures and the Pharmacy Of Your Choice.

Citing the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had renounced to thousands of euros in resigning from an MEP while the former Speaker had increased his salary when he joined the Europ-ean Court of Auditors, Dr Farrugia warned that one had to be concerned on the possibility that the country could suffer a brain drain.

Karl Gouder (PN) said that both parties were to blame for decreasing parliamentary respect among citizens, and it was now time to gain back this respect. He did not agree with the way the government had presented this issue.

One had to keep in mind that a few weeks after the decision to increase the honoraria, the government had reduced the Cabinet, saving an estimated €2.5 million per ministry. The government had thus saved a total of €12.5 million by reducing five ministries.

He could not understand why the opposition had been acting surprised. It was clear that the increase had been announced two years ago and there were records which showed that opposition members knew about it.

Ms Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (PL) had said that she did not agree that the honoraria for ministers should be compared to parliamentary members’ earnings from the public sector. Mr Gouder believed that this was the same principle. He hoped both parties could discuss and agree a way forward for future parliamentary increases.

Nationalist Whip David Agius said it was not a simple thing for a party in government to discuss such an issue because it introduced the element of jealousy among colleagues. People who gave a service to the country had to be given what was due to them without being exposed to attacks by the opposition.

He criticised the Leader of the Opposition for failing to offer a solution. The motion made no mention of MPs. Mr Agius said the opposition failed to understand that there were fewer ministers responsible for larger ministries, saving the country €2.5 million.

He said it was not true that the opposition did not know about the increases in 2008. Two news-papers had published a report on these increases towards the end of 2008. The Labour Whip and he had also given their reaction to these reports. Labour Whip Joe Mizzi had stated that ministers deserved an increase in salary as long as this led to greater accountability.

In 2009, the same labour MP and Dr George Vella had referred to increases in ministers’ salaries during question time. Former MPs also knew of these increases and in 2010 had requested the parliamentary welfare committee to consider that the measure be reflected in their pensions. The parliamentary select committee had to discuss this matter also.

He accused the opposition of mounting a desperate attack on the Prime Minister and of trying to instil jealousy and hatred.

Mr Agius said that families knew what the Prime Minister and his government were doing for them in the education, health and environment sectors. Malta had achieved eurozone membership under Dr Gonzi’s direction. There was an increase in foreign investment and Malta had the lowest unemployment rate in the EU.

MPs therefore had to be concerned not to give the impression that politicians had a thirst for power. The opposition was trying to influence the Auditor General when it proposed that together with the Ombudsman he should put forward proposals on parliamentarians’ salaries.

Mr Agius concluded that the truth was that Parliament had to be shown respect and that both sides had to reactivate the House select committee to discuss salaries for ministers and MPs and also on greater autonomy for Parliament.